{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__library_information_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"3ed2f89c631ed32c0be903a06a4e8e52f7bab10dfff98b285c38fc6a8563daba","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines a domain-native discovery-interface problem independently of the source archetype and identifies observable patron consequences."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves deliberate omission, protected absence, positive-form relationships, boundaries, recoverability, and audience-tested effects rather than treating sparsity as an aesthetic."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever acts through reduced attention competition and clearer perceptual grouping, with a hierarchy-only rival that can distinguish absence-based leverage from ordinary visual emphasis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a coherent domain realization, selected mechanisms have distinct causal or operational roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded with valid counterfactual reasoning."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Prevalence and effect claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported empirical result or authority claim is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier separates crowding from ranking, query, and metadata failures, while the intervention falsifier independently tests the negative-space prototype against both the baseline and the nearest rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized step is a bounded, consent-based prototype test with governance review, protected information classes, accessibility safeguards, explicit halt conditions, and reversible rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Absence is the active intervention throughout: selected content is deferred, spacing is protected, remaining signals are clarified, and recoverability prevents omission from becoming loss."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal accurately engages bibliographic records, facets, relevance judgment, catalog empty states, expert comparison, metadata stewardship, and assistive-technology access."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention-competition and perceptual-grouping chain is coherent and testable, although its local prevalence and effect remain deliberately hypothetical."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, functionally specific, and supported by mechanism dispositions whose counterfactual-removal statements expose their roles."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts alternative causes, expert-density needs, nonvisual interaction, scrolling costs, hidden-information risks, and ambiguous empty states without weakening the core test."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The framing converts generic interface decluttering into a disciplined system of purposeful absence, protected spacing, contextual preservation, and explicit reintroduction."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The prototype scope, comparison conditions, representative tasks, outcome measures, accessibility review, stopping rules, and rollback path are operationally specified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded and reversible test offers plausible discovery benefits with strong safeguards, but benefits and subgroup tradeoffs remain empirically uncertain."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports that prior art was not searched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to established discovery-interface and catalog usability practice is unevidenced.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, compare the proposed component composition and causal contrast with documented discovery-layer design patterns and evaluations.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can credit structural quality but cannot infer prior-art novelty from an explicitly unsearched record."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair cycle; the recorded problem and causal-lever identifiers are unchanged."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-specific, falsifiable, reversible, and safety-bounded transfer. Its main unresolved weakness is novelty evidence, which is explicitly absent rather than fabricated and does not undermine the proposed validation test."}