{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__cognitive_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"9113ad530ae42f27268cac601f8e60c89c95d2396e7edc31940cf49e1121c2c7","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The carryover-confounding problem is independently observable through preceding-trial dependence, boundary errors, and transition misunderstanding, and it has a domain-specific falsifier that does not presuppose the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining structure: mapped attention competition, deliberate omission, bounded protected absence, clarification of adjacent events, interpretable emptiness, recoverability, and audience-tested effect."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The protected interval plausibly reduces immediate signal competition, while immediate-transition and matched-duration active-display comparators help separate protected absence from elapsed time; remaining temporal-expectation and strategy explanations are explicitly testable."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every named archetype component has a concrete experimental realization, the rest-frame mechanism is load-bearing, supporting mechanisms retain their distinctive functions, and rejected mechanisms are not forced into the causal chain."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and causal claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, counterexplanations are disclosed, and no unsupported authority or fabricated evidence is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether transition-related distortion exists after alternative causes are controlled, whereas the intervention falsifier tests whether the protected blank outperforms the duration-matched rival without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to the ethics-approved protocol owner while consent and withdrawal remain with participants; exclusions, stopping conditions, accessible controls, and rollback are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected temporal absence is the active design element and is related coherently to competition, event boundaries, pacing, interpretation, and validation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, event stream, outcome measures, confounds, experimental comparators, and ethics constraints are native to cognitive-science research."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The mechanism is plausible and experimentally discriminable, though delay, expectancy, strategy change, motor refractoriness, fatigue, and genuine sequential cognition remain viable alternatives."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All components receive specific operational translations, including boundaries, permissible content, reintroduction, context preservation, accessibility, and effect testing."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses the strongest analogy break, supplies serious rival explanations, and defines adverse outcomes that would defeat the intervention."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating an inter-trial interval as protected and interpretable absence yields a useful design-and-control framework, although blank intervals themselves may already be familiar experimental practice."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded within-participant pilot, comparator conditions, outcome families, stopping rules, and rollback path are readily operationalizable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"A reversible pilot offers meaningful measurement-validity upside while preserving withdrawal, accessibility, warnings, and recovery and monitoring fatigue and distress."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the proposal or its comparator design is novel."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and prior-art position are unknown.","repair":"Search experimental-methods literature for inter-trial intervals, blank-versus-mask comparisons, carryover controls, and temporal-expectation controls before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural merit and testability but contains no prior-art evidence."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The active-display rival may introduce interference beyond merely removing protected absence.","repair":"Predefine stimulus-energy, predictability, and task-relevance matching and analyze blank-versus-immediate and blank-versus-active contrasts jointly.","evidence_boundary":"The proposed comparison narrows the causal claim but cannot by itself exclude every expectation or masking mechanism."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repair record against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is an independent, domain-faithful, falsifiable adaptation of protected absence with strong component integrity, adversarial controls, and participant safeguards. Its principal unresolved boundary is novelty rather than structural or causal fitness."}