{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__political_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"9226247eb8a70b3ac470e70116b1e7867eb87805bcc7ce10b5855e0d068ce6c6","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Tempo-induced participation inequality is independently recognizable through facilitation behavior, response patterns, delayed concerns, and participant reports without relying on the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Official speech and procedural inputs are mapped to attention competition, while bounded silence functions as protected absence tied to participant formulation and governed by boundaries, interpretation checks, and reentry conditions."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Temporarily withholding high-authority inputs plausibly increases formulation opportunity, and the proposal explicitly conditions downstream representativeness claims on confusion, intimidation, and unequal strategic benefit not worsening."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, the load-bearing mechanism is distinguished from supporting mechanisms, incompatible mechanisms are rejected, and counterfactual-removal statements identify distinct contributions."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and inferential claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no citations, search results, or established-effect claims are fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether tempo is actually associated with the diagnosed inequality, while the intervention falsifier separately compares protected reflection against the same response procedure without that lever and includes adverse outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Agenda-change authority, participant autonomy, assistance channels, excluded uses, low-stakes piloting, immediate stop conditions, and rollback are explicitly bounded; silence cannot be treated as consent."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves deliberate omission, protected absence, positive-form relation, boundaries, meaning checks, recoverability, and effect testing as functional elements rather than aesthetic metaphors."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The problem, actors, power asymmetries, procedural legitimacy concerns, testimony records, agenda authority, access constraints, and rival political explanations are specific to public consultation."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proximal formulation-time mechanism is credible and testable, but retaliation, status, access, agenda control, and unequal strategic capacity remain serious competing causes and moderators."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operationally differentiated, including context preservation, accessibility, diagnostic interpretation, and reintroduction rather than mapping everything to generic silence."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses coercion, false consent, covert steering, distress, comprehension loss, dominant-speaker advantage, meeting burden, and the central analogy break created by political power."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"The negative-space lens yields a distinct diagnosis of official occupation of formulation time and an intervention different from merely redistributing speaking turns."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A bounded comparative pilot, common response procedure, observable outcomes, stop rules, and rollback are specified, though measurement thresholds and comparability procedures still require protocol development."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is reversible and low-cost with substantial safeguards, but silence can intensify coercion or access inequities and the consultation record may influence consequential decisions."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no closed-book evidence establishes novelty relative to deliberative facilitation, wait-time, or public-participation practices."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to established deliberative-facilitation and public-hearing practices is unknown.","repair":"Before making a novelty claim, conduct bounded prior-art research and distinguish the protected-reflection protocol from existing wait-time, silent-reflection, and equitable-turn procedures.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports structural quality and testability only; it does not support originality or empirical effectiveness."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem, causal lever, or supplied repair record against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, politically grounded, falsifiable, and safety-bounded adaptation. Its main unresolved boundary is novelty and external empirical support, which does not defeat the closed-book success criteria."}