{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__logistics_supply_chain","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"246fd2d3caf1da8068218eef0d3ab4815125cdd2cf44c2c9c3c857113ea11774","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The buried-exception problem is independently recognizable in logistics operations and is stated without relying on the archetype for its existence."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Recoverable omission, protected spacing, focal exception records, bounded absence, and effect testing preserve the archetype's defining structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal identifies attention competition as the hypothesized cause and connects visual isolation to earlier correct recognition and authorized response."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete realization, and selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, or guardrail roles with counterfactual dispositions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is marked unsearched, and no unsupported external authority is asserted."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier separates attention competition from missing data, authority, and capacity causes, while the intervention falsifier compares against both baseline and a credible rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed pilot is reversible and display-only, preserves existing action authority and critical evidence, and includes explicit halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Absence is an active, protected intervention that clarifies the remaining positive form while preserving context and recoverability."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The actors, records, actions, dependencies, and safety constraints fit logistics control operations, although the dashboard problem also generalizes to other monitoring domains."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention-to-recognition chain is coherent and testable, but its magnitude and operational benefit remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, concrete, mutually coherent, and supported by appropriately selected and rejected mechanisms."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts expert density needs, dependency concealment, false completeness, accessibility, clutter recurrence, and the strongest dense-view alternative."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes exception handling as protected perceptual isolation rather than merely ranking or alert salience, though the intervention remains close to established interface practice."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A reversible crossover design, explicit baseline and rival, measurable outcomes, staged exposure, and rollback criteria make the proposal directly testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Potential recognition gains are meaningful and the pilot contains risk well, but hidden weak signals and impaired expert comparison remain credible harms."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness beyond the supplied framing is not established."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty and prior-art distinctiveness are unverified.","repair":"Before making novelty claims, compare the composition against established exception-management, control-tower, progressive-disclosure, and dashboard-attention practices.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural evaluation but contains no prior-art search or external novelty evidence."}],"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 structurally faithful, domain-plausible, causally explicit, safely bounded, and unusually well falsified. Its only clear evidence deficit concerns novelty, which does not prevent success under the stated threshold rules."}