{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__criminology_forensic","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f296f02c7e75e8e24023e17ea47e0f13cb2cf0eb231380d3666c680b9f4a2d38","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Task-irrelevant contextual exposure is a forensic workflow problem that exists independently of the negative-space framing."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining structure: competing material is reversibly omitted, the absence is bounded and explained, the retained evidence field is clarified, and reintroduction is triggered."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention directly changes when examiners encounter potentially biasing cues, and the proposed comparison can test whether that change affects independent observation and auditability."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain-specific realizations, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, and irrelevant mechanisms are rejected with coherent reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is marked unsearched, and no unsupported authority or outcome claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether premature irrelevant exposure exists or matters, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether gating improves outcomes without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned to laboratory scientific and quality leadership, the initial test is confined to synthetic or closed adjudicated materials, legal disclosure and safety information are protected, and halt conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected absence is the active intervention rather than a decorative metaphor, with clear boundaries, positive-form relationships, and recoverable reintroduction."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, workflow phases, provenance needs, legal stakeholders, method-selection concerns, and laboratory authority model are specifically forensic."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Preventing premature cue exposure plausibly reduces interpretive competition, but relevance classification may itself introduce bias or withhold information needed for method choice."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component is translated into an operational forensic counterpart, including meaning-of-absence, recoverability, pacing, context preservation, and effect testing."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts legitimate-context needs, classification error, state confusion, delay, accessibility, due-process risk, and the possibility of null or harmful effects."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The negative-space lens adds labeled, protected, and reversible absence to ordinary contextual control, though the core intervention also resembles conventional blinding or information gating."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A bounded, counterbalanced simulation specifies comparison conditions, observation timing, outcomes, recovery controls, logging, and rollback criteria."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The potential fairness and auditability gains are meaningful and the initial test is low exposure, but live adoption could create consequential omissions or disclosure confusion."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from established forensic contextual-bias controls is unsupported."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing forensic blinding, sequential unmasking, and context-management procedures is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review and state which elements, if any, are substantively distinct from established procedures.","evidence_boundary":"The packet marks prior art as unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is warranted."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The benefit and harm balance depends on whether phase-specific relevance can be classified reliably.","repair":"Predefine relevance classes using independent reviewers, measure agreement and classification errors, and analyze outcomes from incorrect withholding separately.","evidence_boundary":"The causal benefit remains a hypothesis and the packet supplies no validation of the proposed classification process."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates and is ready for bounded empirical and prior-art research; its principal unresolved weakness is unsupported novelty rather than structural, causal, operational, or safety incoherence."}