{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__economics_finance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"bb1a78e52a7b44066558d037d44f7295abe821aff116a85537fe00bb62741cd0","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies attentional crowding at the final commitment point as an independently recognizable brokerage problem rather than presuming the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Competing interface elements, deliberate recoverable omission, protected review space, preserved positive form, boundaries, and effect testing correspond directly to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The causal chain plausibly connects reduced attention competition and perceptual isolation to improved interpretation and fewer execution or exposure errors, while clearly treating the outcome as testable."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, selected mechanisms have differentiated roles and counterfactual checks, and rejected mechanisms are rejected for substantive reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are bounded as hypotheses, structural claims are labeled as inference, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported external facts or fabricated citations appear."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers, and the proposed comparison separates protected absence from both the dense baseline and a salience-only rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Investor authority, required disclosures, accessibility, immediate restoration, simulated testing, halt conditions, and rollback are explicitly protected."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention makes deliberate, bounded absence causal and preserves the context needed to interpret what remains."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, order terms, time sensitivity, market context, accessibility concerns, and brokerage authority boundaries are concretely represented."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention-to-comprehension pathway is coherent and rival-aware, but its effect on consequential errors remains empirically unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and integrated with mechanism selection, boundaries, restoration, and testing."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses rival explanations, harmful omission, stale-price risk, dark-pattern misuse, accessibility failure, and urgency costs."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes review-screen clarity as protected attention rather than missing information, though related focus-mode design is already conceptually nearby."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A reversible simulated comparison specifies conditions, outcomes, accessibility checks, restoration measures, and halt criteria."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed first step is low-risk and potentially useful, while production value depends on showing that simplification does not hide context or impair timely action."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty claim is supported."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The magnitude and practical durability of the proposed causal effect are unknown.","repair":"Execute the stated counterbalanced simulation with preregistered tolerances and analyze whether benefits persist after accounting for terminology and product knowledge.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural plausibility and test design, not empirical effectiveness."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing brokerage review and focus-mode patterns is unevidenced.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making originality claims or investing in broader development.","evidence_boundary":"Unsearched novelty does not undermine the structural candidate but prevents a supported novelty conclusion."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; neither identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate survives every reject-first gate. It translates protected absence into a bounded, recoverable brokerage review state, preserves material context and user authority, distinguishes the problem from the intervention, and supplies credible falsifiers and a safe test. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain open research questions without blocking structural success."}