{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__cultural_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"e0e1471e3d4a94fd1c93c1f1d08aae7240b36ef4ab7b3b0ea8b5ab5740ec7e35","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The diagnosed conversational-authority problem is independently observable in facilitation practice and does not depend on accepting the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Facilitator framing is a credible crowding element, the bounded interpretive interval is deliberate protected absence, and participant-authored interpretation is the positive form the absence is intended to clarify."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Withholding the most authoritative immediate frame can plausibly alter formulation time and contribution authorship, and the proposed baseline comparison exposes that causal claim to failure, although response-mode and extra-time effects remain possible rivals."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, the load-bearing facilitation mechanism is distinguished from supporting mechanisms, rejected mechanisms are handled explicitly, and context preservation and recoverability remain integral."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Outcome claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, the absence of domain-specific outcome evidence is disclosed, and no established-effect or novelty claim is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether premature framing exists, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected absence changes authorship, distribution, accuracy, participation, or safety relative to baseline."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Participant authority, consent, passing, alternative response modes, essential-context exemptions, halt conditions, rollback, and prohibitions on coercive silence are specified."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal translates deliberate omission, protected absence, positive-form relationship, boundary, return, and effect testing into a coherent conversational design."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"It engages power, interpretive authority, marginalized readings, historical mediation, and representation in ways specific to cultural-studies settings, while leaving local pedagogical conventions and participant experience empirically unresolved."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed lever can plausibly interrupt anchoring by an authoritative frame, but added processing time, writing options, expectancy, and transition structure could also produce the observed effects."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, functionally differentiated, and supported by explicit mechanism dispositions and counterfactual-removal statements."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts hierarchy amplification, coercion, missing context, trauma, tokenization, accessibility failure, misleading participation metrics, and the analogy break between plurality and perceptual clarity."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating conversational timing as a designed distribution of interpretive authority yields a useful reframing beyond generic participation techniques, though the proposal remains close to established reflective-pause practices."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The pilot is bounded, reversible, and comparative with observable outcomes, but coding rules for independent framing, contextual accuracy, and contribution distribution require prespecification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is low-cost and readily reversible with unusually strong guardrails, but silence under unequal authority can still cause distress or defer needed correction."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so the record supplies no evidence that the composition or application is novel."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The comparison cannot yet isolate protected facilitator withholding from extra processing time, writing, expectancy, or structured-transition effects.","repair":"Use a counterbalanced comparison that holds duration, cueing, and response options constant while varying whether facilitator interpretation is withheld.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports causal plausibility and falsifiability, not attribution of any observed change uniquely to negative space."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Key outcomes such as independently authored framing and contextual accuracy lack prespecified coding rules.","repair":"Define blinded coding criteria, disagreement handling, and a minimum acceptable safety and accuracy profile before the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate names relevant outcomes but supplies no validated measures or domain-specific outcome evidence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, domain-aware, explicitly falsifiable, and unusually careful about authority and safety. Its claims remain appropriately hypothetical; deeper research should isolate the causal lever, operationalize outcomes, and assess prior art."}