{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__geoengineering_planetary_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"3a1683ec46fe0143ccc64fffa9b986db7d7d7b35f381a09096e4be140986701f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The attribution problem is independently recognizable in experimental design: intervention overlap and carryover can compromise reference conditions regardless of the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Deliberate omission, protected absence, bounded reference space, washout pacing, and interpretation of empty states correspond coherently to untreated regions, quiet intervals, and classified null observations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever acts directly on contamination of treatment-reference contrasts, with an explicit chain from protected reference conditions to less model-dependent effect recovery."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain-specific realization, load-bearing mechanisms are distinguished from supporting or incompatible ones, and safety-critical visibility is preserved rather than translated as omission."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical benefits and transferable scientific claims are bounded as hypotheses, prior-art status is declared unsearched, and the proposal relies on a preregistered comparison rather than unsupported success claims."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes contaminated references from sensor or process-model failures, while the intervention falsifier separately tests effect recovery, calibration, robustness, and exposure efficiency against both baseline and rival designs."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized first step prohibits releases, assigns protection rules to independent governance with affected-jurisdiction representation, preserves monitoring and dissent, and specifies halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Absence is the active inferential instrument rather than a decorative metaphor, and its boundaries, purpose, protected status, and relationship to the treatment signal are explicit."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal uses credible domain objects such as transport footprints, carryover, sensor networks, reference domains, uncertainty calibration, and regulatory jurisdiction, while appropriately withholding empirical validation."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Reducing reference contamination should improve identifiability when contamination is material, but coupled variability and long-range transport may prevent physical separation from producing inferential separation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and functionally differentiated, including null interpretation, recoverability, context preservation, reintroduction criteria, and contamination boundaries."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate states a strong analogy break, rival design, failure condition, separate falsifiers, strategic-selection risk, model-error risk, and community-governance risk."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes non-intervention space as protected experimental infrastructure and links scientific identifiability with reduced exposure, though untreated controls are already a familiar experimental concept."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The no-release replay and simulation comparison is bounded, preregistrable, reversible, and equipped with observable endpoints, but feasibility depends on simulator validity and defensible contamination thresholds."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The initial test has low direct environmental risk and could improve evidence per modeled exposure, while later application could create false confidence, reduced coverage, or exclusion if governance and transport assumptions fail."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The composition may be distinctive, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no novelty evidence is supplied."}},"weighted_total":82.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to established control-region, washout, exclusion-zone, and campaign-deconfliction methods is unresolved.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review and state which claimed contribution, if any, is absent from established experimental-design and geoengineering-governance practice.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural merit but cannot establish originality."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The operational validity of contamination thresholds depends on transport-model adequacy and observational detectability.","repair":"During deep research, preregister sensitivity analyses across plausible transport models and threshold choices, including cases where no usable uncontaminated reference exists.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate proposes this dependency honestly but supplies no empirical calibration."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair; neither identifier changed, so no revision improvement can be attributed. The remaining uncertainty is evidentiary rather than a demonstrated conceptual or operational defect."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The candidate is a coherent, safety-bounded structural transfer with distinct falsifiers and a practical no-release test; its principal unresolved issue is external evidence of novelty."}