{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__law_governance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"90b423522f483736774ff6222a9c1227d0f5ad788ec3720edd9c2507ba54463e","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed exclusion problem is independently observable through response latency, queue formation, participant mix, record content, and participant reports without relying on the archetype analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves deliberate omission, protected absence, a defined relationship to participant contribution, explicit boundaries, context preservation, recoverability, and an effect test."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Withholding nonessential chair speech plausibly changes the available formulation window before queue formation, while the comparison can distinguish this lever from speaking-time allocation and recognition rules."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete domain realization, facilitation silence remains load-bearing, and the supporting rest-frame and editorial-cut mechanisms retain their distinctive operational and protective roles."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and prevalence claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is marked unsearched, and no unsupported proposition is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether response latency is actually associated with exclusion, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected reflection changes outcomes when the barrier is present."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to adopted procedure, the initial test is nonbinding, comment entitlements and access routes remain intact, prohibited uses are explicit, and immediate halt and rollback conditions protect procedural rights."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected temporal absence is the active intervention rather than a metaphor, and it is tied to a focal positive form, boundaries, interpretation checks, and recoverability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in hearing procedure, public-record formation, comment rights, recognition practices, accommodations, institutional authority, and review by relevant officials."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The formulation-window mechanism is coherent and directly manipulated, though status, language access, agenda control, and recognition rules may dominate the observed outcomes."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific, mutually coherent, and supported by mechanism dispositions that distinguish causal, operational, protective, and irrelevant contributions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate anticipates coercive interpretations of silence, dead time, access inequity, agenda compression, ambiguity avoidance, outcome-metric distortion, and plausible rival explanations."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reveals a pre-recognition timing asymmetry that equal speaking limits or a round-robin queue do not directly address, creating a distinct procedural design variable."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention is bounded, reversible, observable, compatible with a controlled comparison, and paired with concrete outcomes, rival conditions, interruption triggers, and rollback."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The low-cost test could improve participation and record breadth, while residual risks from authority signaling, access differences, and meeting delay require close monitoring."},"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":"LOW","issue":"The candidate establishes structural merit but provides no evidence about prior implementations or novelty.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, conduct domain-specific prior-art review covering hearing facilitation protocols, deliberative participation procedures, accessibility practice, and response-latency interventions.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation supports only the internal structure and testability of the proposal, not novelty, prevalence, or empirical effect."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no claimed revision."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"All reject-first gates pass. The candidate presents a faithful, domain-grounded, causally testable adaptation with strong authority and safety boundaries; only novelty remains unsupported and explicitly bounded."}