{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__material_culture_museum_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"4b88ffffe3304068c940b181fd7a2d123c171d2baf91c5697e4d7334c3e8fdeb","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The museum problem is independently specified through observable exhibit-density conditions, affected objectives, consequences, and a domain-specific falsifier rather than being defined by analogy alone."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining structure: mapped attention competition, disciplined omission, protected absence, an explicit relationship to what remains, bounded empty regions, and interpretation testing."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Reversible thinning and protected separation plausibly change first-notice, perceptual grouping, and pacing cues, which directly mediate the stated comprehension and recall outcomes; the same-count rival isolates absence from general compositional improvement."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every named archetype component has a concrete museum realization, load-bearing mechanisms have counterfactual-removal accounts, rejected mechanisms are appropriately bounded, and recoverability and reintroduction functions remain intact."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses, the prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, no external authority or result is fabricated, and the proposal specifies measurements instead of presenting anticipated effects as established findings."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The packet separately falsifies the density diagnosis and the protected-absence intervention, while comparison against both the ordinary baseline and a same-count compositional rival makes the causal claim discriminable."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is reversible and limited, authority is distributed across relevant museum functions and communities, protected context is exempt from deletion, excluded actions are explicit, and concrete halt-and-rollback conditions address access, representation, conservation, and interpretation harms."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected absence is the active design element, with disciplined omission, bounded gaps, positive-form relationships, meaning checks, and effect testing all preserved."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal treats objects as evidence and cultural actors, addresses provenance and contested histories, recognizes community authority and representational harm, and respects conservation and access obligations."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The perceptual pathway from reduced competition and bounded separation to attention, grouping, pacing, and recall is coherent, but the magnitude and downstream interpretive benefit remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and operational, including often-missed boundaries, reintroduction triggers, meaning-of-absence checks, and context-preservation safeguards."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts canon formation, erasure, expert comparison, abundance narratives, loss of evidence, inaccessible recovery layers, and measurement bias, with relevant rollback criteria."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes gallery density as deliberately governed absence rather than generic decluttering, though sparse exhibition and spacing practices are already conceptually adjacent to established museum design."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A reversible crossover in matched bays, an ordinary baseline, a mechanism rival, preregistered outcomes, and explicit stopping conditions make the proposal readily testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is recoverable and potentially beneficial, but curatorial selection and reduced visible breadth create meaningful cultural and evidentiary risks that require continuing shared oversight."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"The packet explicitly reports unsearched prior art and provides no comparative evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to established sparse-display, visible-storage, rotation, and gallery-spacing practices is unknown.","repair":"Before making any novelty claim, conduct a documented prior-art review that compares the complete mechanism composition, especially its protected-absence rules, ethical exemptions, meaning checks, and causal comparison design, against museum practice and scholarship.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural and test-design evaluation only; it contains no external prior-art evidence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior candidate, changed problem identifier, changed causal-lever identifier, or registered repair from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally faithful, strongly grounded in museum-specific ethical and evidentiary constraints, causally discriminable, reversible, and testable. Its empirical effects remain appropriately hypothetical, and novelty is the sole material evidence gap without blocking the proposed research test."}