{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__medicine_healthcare","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"47b2ccef6306f77155d81b8ed4a3d62b9e5e481a1d2dfffed1bf07b20d40d2e2","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently specified as present clinical information being perceptually buried by display crowding, with missing or incorrect data explicitly excluded."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal maps deliberate omission, protected absence, positive-form framing, bounded recovery, absence interpretation, and audience testing directly into the clinical interface substrate."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Reversible demotion and protected spacing plausibly act on attention competition and grouping, while the candidate appropriately treats improved recognition as a testable hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, load-bearing mechanisms have explicit counterfactual roles, and rejected or incompatible mechanisms are handled without decorative inclusion."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Effectiveness and prevalence are not presented as established facts; empirical claims are bounded as hypotheses, prior art is marked unsearched, and the proposed study is positioned as validation rather than confirmation."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier separately tests whether crowding predicts recognition failure, while the intervention falsifier compares the prototype with both the baseline and an additive-salience rival across benefit and harm outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The initial test uses synthetic cases without live-care authority, preserves clinician treatment authority, excludes concealment of critical evidence and controls, and defines concrete halt and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected absence is the active intervention rather than a sparse aesthetic, and the mapping preserves the archetype's core invariants."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal reflects clinical provenance, uncertainty, dynamic criticality, accessibility, governance, downstream handoffs, and the hazards of impaired situation awareness."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Reducing verified competition and improving perceptual grouping could improve recognition, but reliable task-dependent criticality classification and preserved comparison remain unresolved empirical dependencies."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every named component is translated into a concrete interface rule, control, state distinction, guardrail, or evaluation procedure."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts dense-comparison benefits, alternative workflow causes, misclassification, false reassurance, responsive-layout failure, accessibility disparities, and clutter migration."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It reframes the display problem from adding stronger alerts to protecting recoverable absence, although conventional hierarchy and decluttering practices remain close conceptual rivals."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A bounded synthetic-case comparison specifies relevant conditions, behavioral outcomes, accessibility checks, recovery behavior, and stopping criteria before clinical exposure."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible prototype and nonclinical first test limit exposure, but downstream deployment would retain substantial risk from classification errors, tunnel vision, and loss of simultaneous context."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing clinical-interface patterns is unsupported."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The central dependency is whether task-specific criticality and secondary content can be classified reliably without suppressing information needed for comparison or situation awareness.","repair":"Predefine classification rules and adjudicated synthetic cases, then report concealment errors, subgroup effects, context comprehension, and recovery behavior separately from detection speed.","evidence_boundary":"No effectiveness or classification reliability evidence is supplied; the current causal claim remains a hypothesis."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing EHR focus views, progressive disclosure, information-hierarchy redesigns, and alert-management approaches is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a targeted prior-art review and state which protected-absence, recoverability, and empty-state features constitute a meaningfully different intervention bundle.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate correctly marks prior art as unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is presently warranted."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; neither identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes the reject-first gates through a faithful negative-space translation, bounded causal claims, distinct falsifiers, and unusually strong clinical safety constraints. Its main unresolved issues are empirical classification performance and prior-art distinctiveness, both appropriately left unclaimed."}