{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__communication_media_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"26676ff4fa0296139c64527a0a6a9f15c577616c78390c13b287a17c698b898b","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independently observable communication problem: premature facilitator floor-filling restricts participant formulation and entry. The diagnosis distinguishes excessive speech from missing information and identifies affected objectives without relying on the archetype label."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Protected conversational absence corresponds directly to deliberate omission, bounded empty space, positive-form clarification, context preservation, recoverability, and an audience-interpretable effect test. The mapping preserves the archetype invariants rather than transferring visual aesthetics literally."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Facilitator withholding is load-bearing: removing it eliminates the unoccupied response interval and therefore the proposed opportunity for independently formulated contributions. The chain is plausible and explicitly conditional, though its outcome claims remain hypotheses."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, and every supplied mechanism receives a reasoned disposition with a counterfactual-removal statement. The selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, and safety roles without displacing the core lever."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not present empirical outcomes or prior-art novelty as established. Claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, evidence maturity is explicit, and the proposed comparison supplies a path to evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether premature facilitator speech is actually associated with the diagnosed deficit, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected silence improves outcomes when that deficit is present. Baseline and nearest rival are distinguishable."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded to a consenting low-stakes pilot, participant response and refusal rights are preserved, accessibility routes remain available, coercive uses are excluded, and concrete halt and rollback conditions address distress, access failure, confusion, and urgency."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The active intervention is protected absence with explicit boundaries, a clarified positive form, preserved context, meaning checks, and validation."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in turn-taking, facilitation authority, multimodal participation, transcript observables, technical latency, interpretation, and power-sensitive communication norms."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Additional unframed formulation time can plausibly broaden participant entry, and the chain includes necessary access and interpretation mediators. Dominant-speaker capture and authority effects remain material empirical contingencies."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific to synchronous discussion, and operationally coherent; mechanism selection and rejection preserve functional distinctions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses coercive silence, cultural variation, technical failure, missing context, dominant speakers, rival turn allocation, measurement limitations, and the visual-to-conversational analogy break."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The negative-space frame clarifies that the intervention protects an interpretable response interval rather than merely prescribing a longer wait. The underlying practice is nevertheless recognizable within ordinary facilitation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded within-meeting comparison, visible prompts, transcript measures, participant reports, rival condition, exit triggers, and rollback procedure support a feasible test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The pilot is low-cost and reversible with plausible participation benefits, while residual hierarchy, pressure, cultural, and accessibility risks require active monitoring."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the intervention or composition is novel."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The packet establishes structural merit but provides no prior-art basis for novelty.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, compare the composition with established work on facilitator wait time, reflective pauses, turn allocation, participation equity, and mediated meeting latency.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet labels prior art as unsearched, so novelty must remain unclaimed until external research is performed."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The proposal is structurally faithful, domain-specific, causally testable, component-complete, adversarially aware, and bounded by strong authority and safety controls. Its principal unresolved weakness is the absence of novelty evidence, which does not invalidate the candidate's closed-book structural success."}