{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__education_pedagogy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"d4c4f30b3699a29e555bc065642d1111938554e35ec2e4c47841e78308a3ddd0","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently recognizable as instructional crowding and premature teacher filling, and is explicitly distinguished from missing prerequisites, inaccurate content, and inadequate language or accessibility support."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves deliberate omission, protected absence, its relationship to a positive instructional form, interpretability, recoverability, and audience-tested effect rather than merely adopting a sparse aesthetic."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Reversible subtraction and bounded visual or conversational pauses plausibly reduce attention competition and teacher preemption, creating processing and response opportunity; the final learning effect remains correctly framed as a hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms are distinguished from supporting and rejected mechanisms, and counterfactual-removal statements identify their roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not claim empirical validation, marks inferential and hypothetical claims, declares prior-art search absent, and bounds its proposal to the supplied closed-book material."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier separates crowding from insufficient instruction, while the intervention falsifier compares the proposal with both ordinary delivery and a chunking-and-signaling rival using learning, participation, interpretation, and harm outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Teacher authority is bounded by accessibility and safeguarding duties, learners retain routes to request support, prohibited coercive uses are explicit, and the pilot is reversible with clear halt conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Absence functions as the active instructional element and is bounded, purposeful, recoverable, and connected to what remains."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal uses recognizable lesson materials, facilitation routines, learner outcomes, novice-scaffolding concerns, accessibility obligations, and classroom power dynamics."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attentional and response-preemption chain is coherent, but whether protected absence improves comprehension and equitable participation requires direct testing."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into concrete lesson-design and facilitation operations without obvious placeholder mappings."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses novice guidance, ambiguity, coercive silence, unequal participation, accessibility loss, context removal, and the strongest neighboring explanation."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It turns pauses and blank regions from incidental gaps into protected instructional states with diagnostic meaning, boundaries, and restoration rules."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The reversible crossover pilot specifies a baseline, rival, preserved content, observable outcomes, harm checks, and rollback."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The pilot is low-commitment and recoverable, but sparse presentation and silence can still impose uneven burdens or remove novice scaffolding."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The learning and participation effects remain unvalidated hypotheses.","repair":"Execute the specified comparison and retain subgroup-sensitive measures of confusion, retrieval, participation, and accommodation failure before broader adoption.","evidence_boundary":"The supplied packet supports structural and causal plausibility, not an empirical effectiveness claim."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing pedagogical practices is unevidenced.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review covering wait time, signaling, multimedia-learning guidance, slide minimalism, and discussion facilitation before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly records prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever identifiers and no registered repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate through a faithful negative-space translation, a coherent but appropriately hypothetical causal chain, complete mechanism handling, distinct falsifiers, and bounded classroom authority. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain open research questions without defeating the structurally testable proposal."}