{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__nanotechnology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"484855e612caf2a413832d5d456bcc47f40b03746e5a6621cd57ea140d626327","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently grounded in nanolithographic dimensional error, bridging, layout density, and device yield rather than being a relabeled perceptual-design complaint."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Targeted geometry omission, a protected unpatterned region, its relationship to a critical feature, rule-enforced boundaries, and metrology-based validation preserve the archetype's essential structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Neighbor distance is an explicit manipulated variable linked through reduced proximity interaction to dimensional fidelity, with the uncertain physical step clearly labeled as a hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, core and supporting mechanisms are distinguished, irrelevant mechanisms are rejected, and recoverability and context preservation remain intact."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate makes no unsupported performance or novelty claim, labels uncertain statements appropriately, identifies prior art as unsearched, and confines proposed validation to a controlled coupon."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether neighboring geometry predicts distortion, while the intervention falsifier separately compares guarded variants with both the packed baseline and the dose-corrected rival under prespecified tradeoffs."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is jointly assigned to process and layout owners, the authorized action is nonproduction and reversible, protected structures are excluded from removal, and halt conditions cover function, area, and performance."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The active absence is deliberately created, bounded, protected from refill, related to a positive form, and judged by its effect rather than by sparse appearance."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal uses credible nanolithography concepts and fabrication observables, though the relevant interaction is described broadly and may vary substantially by tool, material, and process regime."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Increasing separation can plausibly change proximity exposure or related process interactions, but beneficial direction and usable guard width remain empirical questions and new boundary effects are possible."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The translation covers omission selection, protected space, boundary rules, competitor mapping, effect testing, reintroduction, recoverability, intentional-state labeling, and preservation of functional context."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses the strongest rival, acknowledges analogy failure, identifies boundary-induced harm and density loss, and requires functional rather than imaging-only benefit."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating unpatterned area as a protected process-control element yields a coherent design-rule intervention, although spacing and exclusion zones are already natural constructs in layout engineering."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A matched nonproduction coupon, controlled process conditions, graded guard bands, a no-void corrected rival, metrology, electrical endpoints, rollback, and halt criteria make the proposal directly testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible coupon limits initial exposure and the potential yield benefit is meaningful, while density, routing, connectivity, and process-transfer risks remain material."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the intervention or framing is novel."}},"weighted_total":83.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-grounded, causally bounded transfer with a reversible comparative test and strong safety controls. Its only clear evidentiary deficit concerns novelty, which is not claimed and does not undermine the proposed experiment."}