{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__neuroscience","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"5825b1cba514161c675d40bdbd04c9e52a4c6063bf7704f9e6f488a874673f24","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently recognizable in event-related neuroscience: temporal crowding, overlapping response windows, predecessor effects, and participant drift can compromise attribution without relying on the archetype vocabulary."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Competing scheduled events map coherently to positive elements, logged null intervals to deliberate absence, protocol constraints to protected boundaries, and identifiability and interpretation measures to effect testing."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Removing selected nonessential events directly creates bounded temporal separation, with a matched pilot capable of testing whether that separation changes response attribution and stability. The candidate also acknowledges that expectation and ongoing neural activity may mediate or defeat the effect."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, and selected mechanisms have distinct causal, operational, safety, or test roles with counterfactual-removal statements. Incompatible and redundant mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported citation, result, or authority claim is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether ordinary schedules exhibit the diagnosed instability or burden, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected null intervals improve outcomes at matched target count and acquisition settings."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal limits authority appropriately, preserves participant withdrawal and critical controls, requires ethics approval, excludes clinical use, and defines halt and rollback conditions for distress, ambiguity, or reduced interpretability."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Deliberate, bounded absence is the active intervention and is explicitly related to the target events it is intended to clarify, rather than serving as a generic simplification metaphor."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposal uses credible neuroscience design concepts including event timing, overlapping regressors, carryover, adaptation, design identifiability, event logging, and matched target counts. Applicability remains dependent on paradigm and recording modality."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Temporal separation can plausibly reduce overlap and carryover, but null intervals can also introduce anticipation, baseline transitions, or a substantively different cognitive condition."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, concrete, and internally consistent, including boundaries, meaning checks, recovery triggers, context preservation, and accessibility safeguards."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses the strongest rival, the analogy break, ecological-validity loss, efficiency costs, expectation effects, and the possibility that established modeling already solves the problem."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating scheduled absence as a protected experimental object links participant pacing, event attribution, fault classification, and clutter resistance in a useful design frame, though null-event scheduling itself is not established as novel."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A counterbalanced pilot with matched target counts, logged interval states, comparison outcomes, halt conditions, and rollback is feasible, but exact timing ranges, estimands, thresholds, and analysis procedures remain unspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed pilot is bounded and reversible with meaningful potential benefit, while expectation effects, lost control contrasts, longer burden, and altered task dynamics remain material risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":81.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The interval manipulation is not yet specified tightly enough for replication or decisive interpretation.","repair":"Before implementation, preregister interval-duration distributions, filler-selection rules, primary estimands, modality-specific response windows, adverse-experience criteria, and decision thresholds.","evidence_boundary":"These details are absent from the closed-book packet and should be chosen for the specific paradigm rather than inferred here."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The intervention may create expectation or baseline-state effects rather than merely expose target responses more cleanly.","repair":"Include measures or contrasts that separate improved design identifiability from anticipation, fixation-state, and altered-process effects, and define when such effects invalidate the intervention.","evidence_boundary":"The packet identifies this threat but supplies no empirical basis for its expected magnitude."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No novelty or prior-art claim can presently be supported.","repair":"Conduct domain-specific prior-art review before describing protected logged null intervals as an innovation rather than a structured adaptation of established scheduling practices.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly reports unsearched prior art and hypothesis-level maturity."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs; no improvement across attempts can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate independently identifies a credible neuroscience problem, translates protected absence with unusually complete component and mechanism integrity, and proposes a falsifiable, bounded pilot. Its main unresolved boundary is empirical and novelty evidence, not structural fit or safety."}