{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__literature_literary_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"e6f6d7172a789fc1af36ba5ff4ea5f160171157c8e449d4be887234b4a53aa48","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently recognizable as premature interpretive scaffolding that changes reader attention and agency, rather than as a restatement of the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves deliberate omission, protected absence, relation to the remaining form, recoverability, and an audience-facing effect test."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention directly changes when interpretive apparatus competes with primary-text evidence, while the baseline and typography-only rival isolate absence as the proposed lever."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All named archetype components receive domain-specific realizations, and selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, or test-design roles with explicit removal counterfactuals."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects and structural mappings are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no external evidence or novelty claim is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the existence of harmful early apparatus competition and the benefit of delayed recoverable gloss, using observable outcomes against a defined baseline."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is reversible and consented, reader-controlled reveal is preserved, essential and accessibility supports are exempted, authority is bounded, and halt conditions are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal uses absence as the active intervention and retains the archetype's boundaries, positive-form relationship, context preservation, recoverability, and effect testing."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The problem and measures are native to literary reading, annotation, close attention, textual warrant, interpretive agency, and editorial power."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention-competition chain is coherent and experimentally isolable, though the direction and magnitude of reader effects remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, specific to annotated reading, and reinforced by coherent mechanism dispositions and counterfactual-removal statements."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts the strongest novice-support objection, the constitutive role of context, exclusion risks, editorial abuse, and the possibility that readers already self-regulate note use."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes annotation design from information provision alone to the timing and visibility of interpretive authority, while remaining adjacent to established scaffold-fading ideas."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A short reversible crossover pilot, concrete baseline, immediate reveal, observable behaviors, outcome measures, and rollback criteria make the proposal directly testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential gains in evidence-bound reading and agency are meaningful, while recoverability and support exemptions contain but do not eliminate exclusion and comprehension risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports unsearched prior art and supplies no evidence establishing novelty relative to annotation, scaffold-fading, or reading-interface research."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and prior-art position are unknown.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, compare the intervention with scaffold fading, progressive disclosure, annotation-interface studies, and pedagogies of first-pass reading.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural quality and testability but contains no prior-art search."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The apparatus classification rule could permit inconsistent editorial judgments about what counts as essential support versus premature interpretation.","repair":"Pre-register classification criteria, use independent review, and report disagreements and reader-request patterns during the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"The packet identifies editorial power as a risk but provides no reliability evidence for the proposed classification process."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-specific, causally coherent, component-complete, falsifiable, and safely scoped. Its empirical benefits remain hypotheses suitable for the proposed pilot, and novelty remains wholly unestablished."}