{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__futurism_foresight","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"966e1a9e68369b3812eecee1a162ff5c077928fa2d04f5de240588d460431a34","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The attention-saturation problem is independently recognizable in foresight workshops and is stated through observable workshop behavior rather than through archetype terminology alone."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves deliberate omission, protected absence, a positive-form relationship, explicit boundaries, recoverability, and audience-effect validation in domain-specific form."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Recoverable cuts and bounded facilitator silence plausibly reduce competing input and anchoring, creating independent formulation time before synthesis; the baseline and nearest rival isolate that leverage."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete domain realization, while selected mechanisms have distinct functions, counterfactual-removal tests, and appropriate rejection of nonessential mechanisms."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and causal claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported effectiveness or novelty claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes attention saturation from missing expertise, evidence, or authority, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected intervals outperform the diagnosed baseline without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is appropriately limited, participants retain clarification and opt-out rights, prohibited uses are explicit, and the pilot includes accessibility safeguards, halt conditions, and reversible rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention makes absence an active, protected, bounded element that clarifies a specified foresight object while preserving context and recoverability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal uses authentic foresight substrates and objectives, including scenario distinctions, weak-signal evidence, plural interpretation, uncertainty, workshop synthesis, and decision relevance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from reduced input competition and facilitator anchoring to independent interpretation is coherent and testable, but its effectiveness remains an empirical hypothesis and may vary by participant needs."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, operationally specific, and supported by mechanism dispositions that distinguish load-bearing, supporting, peripheral, rejected, and incompatible roles."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts dense-comparison needs, silence-related power effects, accessibility failures, hidden evidence, strategically irrelevant diversity, and plausible null results."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes workshop crowding as a deficit of protected interpretation rather than merely excessive content, yielding an intervention distinct from deck summarization or ordinary facilitation."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded matched-segment comparison has observable outcomes, a clear baseline, rapid rollback, and feasible collection of interpretation, recall, participation, completion, and discomfort measures."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposed first step is low-cost and reversible, while the main coercion, accessibility, concealment, and performance risks have explicit exclusions and stop conditions."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty beyond the internally coherent recombination."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The proposal establishes structural distinctiveness but not external novelty.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review of foresight workshop reflection protocols, silent ideation, nominal-group procedures, and presentation pacing before making novelty claims.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports structural quality only; it cannot establish precedence or novelty."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The causal advantage over prioritization and structured written ideation remains unvalidated.","repair":"Pre-register acceptable margins and compare the protected-absence format with both the ordinary baseline and a continuous-facilitation rival using representative participants.","evidence_boundary":"The supplied packet supports a plausible mechanism and feasible test, not an empirical effectiveness conclusion."}],"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 could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The proposal passes every reject-first gate through a domain-independent problem, faithful negative-space structure, plausible and isolatable leverage, complete component translation, bounded evidence claims, separate falsifiers, and strong authority safeguards. Its only weak dimension is external novelty evidence, which is openly absent rather than fabricated."}