{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__mathematics","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"93b83fff6c52a337f06986b84d27717950a1bcf235ac8a192f03d490664d8b50","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable proof-state interface problem: necessary information is present, but perceptual crowding impedes recognition of the active obligation and its dependencies."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's defining structure: competing elements, deliberate reversible omission, protected absence, a positive form clarified by that absence, explicit empty-state meaning, and perceptual validation."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Reversible collapse and protected spacing plausibly reduce immediate attention competition, while explicit labels and recovery controls address the main ways omission could create confusion. The effect remains an appropriately bounded empirical hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, selected mechanisms have differentiated causal, operational, or guardrail roles, and rejected mechanisms are excluded with counterfactual justification."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects and the crowded-baseline claim are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and the candidate does not present unsupported performance or novelty claims as established facts."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem diagnosis and intervention have distinct falsifiers. The former tests whether crowding actually causes recognition failures; the latter compares the proposed design against both the dense baseline and a highlight-only rival while tracking recovery and accessibility harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed first step is consensual, reversible, and confined to archived non-production tasks. It preserves proof semantics and records, exempts correctness-critical content from hiding, provides participant-controlled rollback, and specifies safety halts."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected absence is an active causal element rather than a stylistic label, and the proposal preserves the archetype's essential figure-ground, boundary, recoverability, and interpretation structure."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proof-state substrate, formal obligations, dependency provenance, and verifiability constraints are mathematically credible, although the intervention primarily operates at the adjacent interface and human-computer interaction layer."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The chain from reduced competition and perceptual separation to faster, more accurate obligation recognition is coherent, but remains unvalidated and could be matched by the highlight-only rival."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally specific, including boundaries, empty-state semantics, reintroduction, accessibility, recoverability, and context preservation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts expert use of dense context, mathematical-knowledge confounding, logically indispensable secondary notation, small-screen costs, asynchronous state errors, and accessibility failure."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal usefully reframes proof-state density as a problem of protected perceptual absence while remaining candid that it does not solve mathematical reasoning or establish inference validity."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The reversible crossover design specifies comparators, observable outcomes, adverse outcomes, rollback conditions, and a bounded non-production setting."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The trial has low semantic and operational exposure with credible upside, but hidden-context costs and accessibility failures remain material enough to require careful measurement."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports novelty or differentiation from existing theorem-prover interface practices."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The central benefit remains an empirical hypothesis and the highlight-only rival could explain the same improvement without omission.","repair":"Run the specified crossover study with counterbalanced conditions and report accuracy, latency, recovery actions, empty-state errors, accessibility failures, and participant subgroup effects.","evidence_boundary":"Until comparative results exist, claims about improved recognition or reduced search effort must remain prospective."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty and prior-art differentiation are unsupported.","repair":"Search theorem-prover interface literature and existing proof-state implementations for collapsible context, goal isolation, structured accessibility, and empty-state semantics, then document overlaps and distinctions.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation can confirm internal coherence but cannot establish novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no registered prior repairs, so no trajectory improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally strong, domain-aware, falsifiable, and safely testable. Its main unresolved needs are comparative empirical validation and prior-art research rather than conceptual repair."}