{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__psychology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"f0c2f70f680f6272fd7c574da72690efbdf6d8af7b64420ddd8330087be48579","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Prompt stacking and truncated client elaboration are defined through transcript, turn-taking, and client-report observations independently of the proposed silence intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining structure: clinician utterances are identified as attention competitors, a bounded absence is protected, and that absence is explicitly related to the client's emerging response."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Withholding premature follow-ups directly changes the contested response interval, while the clearer-question rival isolates whether protected absence adds leverage beyond ordinary interviewing skill."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete clinical realization, the load-bearing conversational mechanism is identified, supporting mechanisms add distinct functions, and rejected mechanisms are not forced into the mapping."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical efficacy and baseline claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, prior art is marked unsearched, and the proposal makes no unsupported claim of established clinical benefit or novelty."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether prompt stacking is present and consequential, whereas the intervention falsifier compares protected silence with a distinct rival on benefits, harms, and heterogeneous effects."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized first step is simulation-only, client control and accommodations override the pause, urgent assessment is excluded from withholding, and explicit halt and rollback conditions are provided."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected conversational absence is the active intervention rather than a decorative metaphor, with crowding, boundary, positive-form relationship, and audience-effect validation all retained."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal reflects psychotherapy's relational power, consent, trauma, accessibility, clinical urgency, supervision, and the ambiguity of silence."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed path from reduced clinician verbal competition to greater client formulation opportunity is coherent and testable, but beneficial elaboration remains heterogeneous and silence may carry adverse interpersonal meanings."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and operational, including context preservation, recoverability, meaning checks, and reintroduction triggers."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate states a strong analogy break, identifies conditions under which structured prompting would outperform waiting, and specifies both problem-level and intervention-level defeat conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The negative-space frame turns clinician non-speech into a bounded, testable design variable, though deliberate therapeutic or facilitative silence is already a recognizable conversational practice."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A bounded simulation, randomized comparable prompts, blinded transcript coding, participant ratings, a rival condition, and predefined adverse-response handling form an executable first test."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Simulation limits initial exposure and the intervention is readily reversible, but later clinical value depends on detecting distress, inequitable effects, and urgent exceptions reliably."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence supports novelty relative to psychotherapy interviewing, wait-time, or therapeutic-silence practices."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal establishes no novelty boundary against existing therapeutic-silence, interviewing wait-time, and clinical communication practices.","repair":"During deep research, search the relevant clinical and communication literature and distinguish any established protocols from the candidate's bounded rule, meaning checks, and comparative test design.","evidence_boundary":"This is a research task rather than a structural repair because the candidate accurately marks prior art as unsearched and does not claim novelty."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem identifier, causal-lever identifier, or registered repair to compare; no improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally faithful, clinically bounded, causally testable, component-complete, adversarially explicit, and safe for its proposed simulation-first stage. Its principal unresolved issue is external evidence about prior art and novelty, which does not undermine the closed-book structural qualification."}