{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__engineering_design","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2b754e5d3639c625128987526a104c7369f851e82714608dcf78f7d602a2b1f7","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable industrial-interface failure involving delayed alarm detection amid dense normal-state information, rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Protected absence, attention competition, contextual preservation, meaningful empty states, and effect testing have explicit and coherent domain correspondences."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever creates a stable low-stimulation reference state whose transition to a populated alarm state plausibly increases perceptual separation and reduces visual search; rival causes are acknowledged and controlled in the proposed test."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component is translated, adapted where necessary, or protected by a domain-specific guardrail, and mechanism selections include distinct contributions and counterfactual-removal consequences."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness and novelty are explicitly bounded as unverified hypotheses, no external evidence or fabricated authority is asserted, and the candidate proposes testing rather than presenting expected effects as established facts."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether visual competition contributes to the baseline failure, while the intervention falsifier separately compares the protected-region design against both the existing interface and a prioritization-only rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Deployment authority, affected parties, simulator-only authorization, excluded actions, diagnostic protections, and halt-and-rollback conditions are specified and proportionate to the safety-critical setting."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Absence is the active contrast-generating element, is deliberately bounded and protected, and remains explicitly related to the alarm form it supports."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves monitoring health, alarm provenance, critical controls, operating context, redundant annunciation, and accountable safety ownership while adapting negative space to an industrial HMI."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The perceptual-baseline mechanism is coherent and rival explanations are recognized, but its effect under representative alarm loads remains an empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, operationally specific, and preserves recoverability, accessibility, diagnostic meaning, context, boundaries, and reintroduction logic."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate supplies strong counterevidence, an analogy break, a credible nearest rival, independent falsifiers, failure modes, and safety-sensitive rollback criteria."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It adds a distinct design lens by treating the normal display state as a protected perceptual reference rather than relying only on stronger alarm styling, ordering, or rate control."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A simulator-only counterbalanced comparison, representative scenarios, measurable outcomes, competing designs, and explicit halt conditions make the proposal readily testable without live-control changes."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The simulator-first path limits immediate exposure and the potential safety benefit is meaningful, but production use could create false reassurance, hide needed context, or disrupt trained behavior if validation and governance fail."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports that prior art is unsearched, so novelty cannot be supported closed-book."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The packet provides no prior-art evidence for the protected quiet alarm-region concept or its particular mechanism composition.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, conduct a bounded review of industrial alarm-display patterns and document materially similar designs, distinguishing structural precedent from empirical effectiveness evidence.","evidence_boundary":"The current packet supports structural novelty only as an unevaluated possibility; it does not establish originality or prevalence."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The causal effect remains unvalidated under representative operating conditions and may be dominated by alarm flooding, trust, training, task load, or acoustic factors.","repair":"Execute the proposed simulator comparison with predeclared limits and stratification for the identified rival causes, then retain the causal claim only if the protected-region condition outperforms both comparators without worsening safety outcomes.","evidence_boundary":"The packet establishes a plausible and falsifiable mechanism, not measured effectiveness."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-specific, causally plausible, adversarially developed, safely bounded, and operationally testable. Its main unresolved boundary is novelty, which is explicitly unsearched and therefore receives no evidentiary credit."}