{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__military_strategic_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"55e2e1344d21b589687a3ec7356f90dbda51a254e38dbc486195c3147969aca9","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The command-post crowding problem is independently observable through competing overlays, continuous narration, ambiguous absence states, restatement requests, and premature decisions; it does not depend on accepting the proposed intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The mapping preserves the archetype's defining structure: identified attention competitors are selectively omitted or muted, absence is actively protected, the remaining decision form is clarified, and context remains recoverable."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Holding source information constant while reducing perceptual competition and presenter preemption could plausibly improve noticing and independent interpretation. The causal claim is explicitly hypothetical and paired with relevant adverse outcomes."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization. Load-bearing mechanisms, supporting mechanisms, rejected mechanisms, counterfactual removals, reintroduction triggers, and recoverability protections are coherently specified."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate does not claim demonstrated effectiveness or novelty, distinguishes hypotheses from inferences, marks prior art as unsearched, and avoids unsupported citations or invented empirical results."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether crowding and premature filling are actually causal, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected absence improves interpretation without increasing anomalies, retrieval delay, or unsafe state errors."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized step is confined to a reversible tabletop or simulator trial, assigns approval responsibility, preserves urgent interruption and protected information, and defines immediate rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected omission, bounded display and temporal absence, positive-form framing, explicit absence meaning, and recoverable context instantiate the archetype directly rather than merely advocating simplicity."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is grounded in command-post actors, briefing phases, operational displays, delegated authority, information provenance, dissent, force protection, and live-operation approval boundaries."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed path from reduced competition and presenter preemption to improved noticing and interpretation is credible and testable, but effectiveness remains hypothetical."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The complete component set is translated into identifiable command-post artifacts, rules, state labels, tests, triggers, and guardrails."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts fixation, anomaly loss, hidden-layer search costs, coercive silence, false reassurance, manipulation, and simulation-to-operations transfer failure with explicit falsifiers and rollback criteria."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes update density as a problem of deliberately bounded perceptual and interpretive absence, yielding interventions distinct from adding salience cues or performing generic simplification."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A reversible crossover comparison with common scripted injects, a defined baseline, observable interpretation outcomes, retrieval checks, and safety halt conditions is operationally concrete."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The simulator-first design limits initial exposure and preserves rollback, while consequential risks remain if later operational adoption hides emerging information or fragments shared awareness."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, and the packet supplies no comparative evidence establishing novelty."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The composition's novelty relative to existing command-display, briefing-pause, and decision-support practices is unknown.","repair":"Before making a novelty claim, compare the complete intervention against documented military command-post and decision-support practices, identifying which protected-absence relationships are already established and which, if any, are distinct.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched and supports no novelty conclusion."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The causal benefit is well specified but remains unvalidated.","repair":"Execute the authorized crossover trial and evaluate interpretation accuracy together with anomaly detection, retrieval latency, absence-state confusion, dissent transmission, and urgent interruption performance.","evidence_boundary":"The packet provides a testable hypothesis and protocol outline, not empirical effectiveness evidence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no claimed revision-based improvement."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-grounded negative-space composition with complete component translation, a plausible causal chain, distinct falsifiers, and appropriately bounded authority. Effectiveness and novelty remain empirical research questions, but those boundaries are stated honestly and do not undermine the proposed reversible test."}