{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__marine_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"4d1ff42d1b3a5da03acc9aa71080abadc06224f25bf92d1614cb5679b63fb91c","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently specified as co-located active-acoustic interference, with observable contamination, affected objectives, actors, and a domain-native baseline rather than as a restatement of the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Crowding, protected absence, positive form, bounded edges, meaning of absence, and reintroduction are coherently translated into transmissions, quiet windows, observations, guard intervals, telemetry states, and scheduled resumption."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Pausing nonessential platform emitters directly changes the proposed source of self-generated acoustic occupation, while marked quiet intervals provide the reference observations needed to test the effect."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete realization, selected mechanisms have distinct causal or guardrail roles, rejected mechanisms are explicitly bounded, and the quiet window remains the load-bearing intervention."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical benefits are consistently bounded as inference or hypothesis, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, no source or result is fabricated, and the proposal does not present anticipated pilot outcomes as established findings."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate falsifiers address whether material platform interference exists and whether quiet windows outperform baseline or conventional staggering under an active-coverage bound."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority, affected parties, operational exemptions, safety override, halt conditions, rollback, raw-data retention, and scope limitations are explicitly assigned."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected, purposeful absence is the active intervention and is tied to what remains, bounded against encroachment, distinguished from failure, and followed by controlled reintroduction."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal uses credible marine-observatory entities, timing and recovery effects, metadata, coverage constraints, and operational authority, though platform-specific feasibility remains unverified."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Removing platform transmissions during bounded intervals should remove that source of contamination, but external noise and lost active observations limit the attainable benefit."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The complete component set is translated into operationally distinguishable scheduling, metadata, testing, recoverability, and context-preservation functions."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts synchronization, post-processing, external noise, transient-event loss, clock error, confounding, critical emitters, and scope creep with relevant tests or constraints."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes silence from incidental downtime into a protected measurement condition that simultaneously supports ambient referencing, receiver recovery, and contamination diagnosis."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A reversible crossover pilot, retained logs, marked schedules, offline signal injection, baseline comparison, coverage tracking, and rollback criteria make the proposal directly testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is reversible and exempts critical systems, with plausible information gains, but deferred sampling can still miss transient events or alter comparability."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the intervention or its composition is novel."}},"weighted_total":86.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The packet supports structural merit but not a novelty claim.","repair":"Before asserting novelty, compare the proposed all-source quiet-window composition against established observatory scheduling, acoustic-interference mitigation, and passive-monitoring calibration practices.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet identifies prior art as unsearched and supplies no external comparison evidence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem, causal lever, or registered repair against which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-native use of protected absence: it defines an independent interference problem, changes the proposed contaminating input, preserves the full component structure, separates problem and intervention falsification, and includes credible authority and rollback controls. Its unresolved limitation is novelty evidence, which does not undermine the bounded scientific test proposed."}