{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__environmental_climate","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"df7f3fef6cfe1b95bcf30d22d8df594267e0bc63dcce450d192c362490642cc9","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The dashboard crowding problem is defined through observable operator errors and climate-hazard workflow consequences without depending on the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Competing interface elements, protected absence, bounded empty regions, preserved context, interpretable empty states, and behavioral validation correspond directly to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Reversible demotion and protected spacing plausibly reduce attention competition at the decision-critical threshold, with the claimed effect bounded as a testable hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, and selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, or safety roles with explicit removal consequences."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate labels performance claims as hypotheses or inferences, states that prior art is unsearched, and does not present unsupported empirical efficacy as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers distinguish absence of baseline crowding from failure or harm of the protected-absence intervention."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is assigned, initial testing is offline, critical disclosures are exempt from hiding, affected parties are identified, and halt and rollback conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves protected, purposeful absence as the active intervention and maps the full structure coherently."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The dashboard workflow, uncertainty context, compound-hazard risk, accessibility needs, and emergency-management authority are treated credibly, though representative operational evidence is not supplied."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention-competition pathway is plausible and contrasted with a hierarchy-only rival, but its practical effect remains to be demonstrated."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All named components receive concrete dashboard realizations, including recoverability, context preservation, state diagnosis, boundaries, and reintroduction."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses dense comparison needs, compound hazards, false calm, expert slowdown, accessibility, concealment risk, and alternative causes of interpretation failure."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes dashboard performance as management of deliberate absence rather than merely stronger visual salience."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"Archived or synthetic scenario comparison provides measurable outcomes, a baseline, a rival, bounded authority, and explicit stopping conditions."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Offline reversible testing limits immediate harm and preserves critical evidence, while possible missed secondary hazards and differential user effects remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness relative to existing hazard-dashboard and human-factors practice is unsupported."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The causal effect has not yet been demonstrated in representative hazard-dashboard use.","repair":"Run the specified prototype comparison with compound-hazard cases, accessibility strata, and expert as well as novice operators before considering operational deployment.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural plausibility and test design, not empirical effectiveness."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to existing dashboard, alerting, and human-factors practice is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making originality or distinctiveness claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly classifies prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an 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":"The candidate is structurally complete, domain-aware, falsifiable, and safely scoped for offline testing. Its principal unresolved boundary is empirical and novelty evidence rather than transfer integrity."}