{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__performing_arts_theatre","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"e174918718c183f910f3c17e4b2e973944ff371fb791e3374c8e8f58d5d65f5b","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The production problem is independently observable as pivotal dramatic events being masked by simultaneous stage channels, with missing exposition explicitly separated as a rival diagnosis."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining structure: identified competitors are selectively omitted, bounded absence is protected, the absence frames a positive dramatic event, and audience effects are tested."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Reducing competing verbal, sonic, visual, and kinetic signals plausibly increases perceptual isolation and processing time for the adjacent dramatic event."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every supplied component has a concrete theatrical realization, and selected mechanisms retain their operative features of reversible subtraction, calibrated pauses, protected intervals, and perceptual separation."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are consistently bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported prevalence or effect-size claim is presented as fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers: baseline recognition or missing exposition can refute the diagnosis, while comparative audience outcomes can separately refute the treatment."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The rehearsal test is reversible and consented, distributes authority across relevant creative, technical, accessibility, performer, and rights-holder roles, and includes explicit exclusions and rollback conditions."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The mapping closely matches deliberate omission and protected absence used to clarify a remaining focal form."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"Prompt scripts, cue sequences, dramaturgical continuity, rehearsal practice, performer orientation, rights, and access services are handled in theatre-specific terms."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The chain from channel competition through reversible reduction and bounded processing space to improved recognition is direct, coherent, and comparatively testable."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set is translated into distinct production artifacts, procedures, guardrails, and audience checks without collapsing them into generic simplicity."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses intentional polyphony, productive ambiguity, irreversible audience time, technical-failure interpretations, missing-information rivals, and accessibility loss."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes unclear dramatic emphasis as a protected-attention problem, though pauses, stillness, and selective cutting are familiar theatrical techniques."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The counterbalanced rehearsal comparison is feasible and reversible, but decision thresholds, sampling logic, and measurement instruments remain underspecified."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention is localized, reversible, inexpensive to pilot, and paired with strong safeguards against safety, accessibility, consent, continuity, and rights harms."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, and the packet supplies no comparative evidence that this composition is novel within theatre practice or scholarship."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"Novelty relative to established uses of pause, stillness, rhythmic interruption, and selective stage-channel reduction is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review across directing, dramaturgy, performance theory, sound design, choreography, and audience-reception research; identify the nearest established intervention and state whether the contribution is new, recombinatory, or merely an operational specification.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet supports structural quality and testability but contains no searchable prior-art evidence."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The pilot lacks prespecified outcome thresholds and measurement details.","repair":"Define the audience instrument, scoring rules, intended recognition criterion, minimum acceptable improvement, confusion and accessibility non-inferiority limits, and beat-level retain-or-rollback rule before rehearsal exposure.","evidence_boundary":"The proposed comparison identifies relevant outcomes but does not establish measurement reliability or a decision threshold."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repair history against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, theatre-specific, causally coherent, falsifiable, reversible, and safety-bounded. Its principal unresolved issue is evidentiary novelty, with secondary operational work needed to prespecify pilot measurement and decision rules."}