{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__organizational_management","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"6da3151b6b581229a19c2f3e3f75eb999933d402a5f4394215c228f5a66e2e16","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The organizational problem is independently specified through observable meeting behavior, consequences, affected actors, and alternative explanations rather than being defined by the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Crowding, selective omission, protected absence, its relationship to the focal decision, explicit boundaries, and an effect test all have concrete organizational realizations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Protected independent reflection plausibly interrupts immediate social anchoring and creates a pathway for concerns and interpretations to form before collective discussion."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component is translated, the load-bearing facilitation mechanism is identified, supporting mechanisms have distinct roles, and rejected mechanisms are not forced into the proposal."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Prevalence and effectiveness are bounded as hypotheses, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, no empirical authority is fabricated, and the proposed evidence comes from a prospective comparison."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem can fail because crowding is absent or noncausal, while the intervention can separately fail despite a real problem; baseline, rival, outcomes, harms, and rollback conditions are observable."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Format authority is separated from substantive decision authority, required consultation and safety channels are preserved, data collection is bounded, coercive uses are excluded, and the pilot is reversible."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves deliberate omission, protected absence, positive-form relation, interpretability, recoverability, and validation as functional structure rather than decorative analogy."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, authority boundaries, meeting processes, participation dynamics, downstream effects, and organizational alternatives are specific and credible."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed pathway is coherent and testable, though silence can acquire power-laden meanings and the bundled agenda-thinning element may complicate attribution."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"All named components receive operationally distinct domain realizations, including boundaries, resumption triggers, context preservation, and accessibility safeguards."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses rival explanations, analogy limits, adverse interpretations of silence, accessibility, monitoring risk, urgency, and ritualization."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"Treating reflection time as protected organizational space yields useful design rules beyond generic advice to improve facilitation, while remaining adjacent to established meeting practices."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded alternating pilot, explicit baseline and rival, measurable process outcomes, halt conditions, and reversible implementation support practical testing."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is low-cost and reversible with meaningful potential benefit, but power dynamics, anxiety, accessibility, privacy, and decision-delay risks require local monitoring."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence establishes novelty."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot combines protected reflection with agenda thinning, which may obscure which element produces any observed change.","repair":"Prespecify implementation fidelity for each element and, if the forum permits, compare the protected interval both with and without agenda thinning.","evidence_boundary":"Such a comparison would improve local causal attribution but would not establish broad organizational effectiveness or novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair cycle, problem change, or causal-lever change to which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful and domain-specific transfer with a plausible protected-reflection mechanism, complete component translation, explicit falsifiers, and strong authority and safety boundaries. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain unestablished, but those limits are disclosed and do not undermine the bounded proposal."}