{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__linguistics_semiotics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"d92df3fb9c771b015efb4209c377ed2781c08d2d6b5b58aea341303e77a5a1af","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independently observable emergency-sign problem through cue competition, hesitation, grouping error, route error, and subgroup disparity rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Crowding, deliberate omission, protected gaps, positive-form grouping, bounded absence, context preservation, and effect testing have explicit domain counterparts."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever plausibly changes perception by reducing competitors and strengthening proximity-based association between the arrow, imperative, and translations; the baseline and hierarchy-only rival isolate that leverage."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a coherent direct or adapted realization, selected mechanisms have distinct causal or operational roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for relevant substrate or safety reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical propositions are labeled as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is openly unsearched, and the proposal claims a testable conjecture rather than established effectiveness."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the density-based problem and the protected-separation intervention, specifies opposing evidence, and includes comparison against both ordinary practice and the nearest rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority remains with responsible safety officials under applicable review, initial testing is non-live, required information cannot be removed, subgroup harm triggers a halt, and rollback is explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected absence is the active intervention rather than a stylistic by-product, and it is tied to a clearly identified positive form and measurable perceptual effects."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal respects multilingual signifiers, grouping, interpretation, accessibility, regulation, and urgency, though it does not yet operationalize particular linguistic contrasts or jurisdiction-specific sign conventions."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The competition-to-grouping-to-route-choice chain is coherent and rival-discriminating, but its effect under emergency-like conditions remains deliberately unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The complete component set is translated into concrete signage functions without collapsing omission, spacing, recoverability, interpretation, pacing, and testing into one generic simplification move."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts missing-translation interpretations, protective redundancy, translation-quality confounding, subgroup reversals, clutter recurrence, and a strong hierarchy-only rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes dense emergency signage as a protected-relation problem rather than only a typography or hierarchy problem, although whitespace in signage is not intrinsically a surprising intervention."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"Mockup comparisons expose route accuracy, timing, recall, grouping, and subgroup effects to testing, but margins, sampling, stress realism, and compliance constraints still require protocol-level specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Non-live testing, content-preservation rules, subgroup safeguards, and rollback contain initial risk, while any later deployment would retain asymmetric safety consequences."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The testing plan names subgroup noninferiority and emergency-like performance without defining margins, sampling requirements, or simulation realism.","repair":"Before execution, preregister operational thresholds, subgroup power requirements, stress conditions, exclusion rules, and compliance review criteria.","evidence_boundary":"This is an execution-level limitation; the current packet supports internal plausibility and falsifiability, not effectiveness."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The packet provides no prior-art basis for novelty.","repair":"Conduct a bounded review of multilingual emergency-sign standards, evacuation-sign comprehension studies, and spacing or grouping interventions before making any novelty claim.","evidence_boundary":"The missing search constrains novelty only and does not negate the structurally coherent conjecture."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers, no prior repairs, and no earlier candidate against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, safety-bounded conjecture with a coherent protected-separation mechanism, distinct falsifiers, and an appropriate non-live test path. Its principal unresolved boundary is novelty, with additional protocol detail needed before execution."}