{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__public_administration_policy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"2b427e4e1083b6ba27cc4bc21356a8b02ca9b04c15f26ce3c2f18afd77846c95","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The notice-crowding problem is independently specified through observable recipient failures, consequences, affected objectives, and a problem falsifier rather than being inferred solely from the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the defining correspondence among attention competition, deliberate and recoverable omission, protected absence, a named positive form, bounded empty regions, and audience-tested effects."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever directly changes the immediate attention field through reviewed relocation and protected spacing, with a plausible path to improved recognition and explicit comparison against a linguistic-complexity rival."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a concrete domain realization, load-bearing mechanisms have removal counterfactuals, rejected mechanisms are distinguished coherently, and recoverability and context preservation constrain subtraction."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects are labeled as hypotheses, domain mappings are bounded as inferences or hypotheses, prior art is declared unsearched, and the proposal does not present legal sufficiency or effectiveness as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The diagnosed problem and the intervention have distinct falsifiers, and the design separates the ordinary template, plain-language rival, and negative-space variant using measurable comprehension, completeness, accessibility, and retrieval outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to a reviewed non-operative pilot; controlling legal requirements, protected-group checks, excluded actions, halt conditions, and rollback are expressly preserved."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate translates absence as an active, bounded, recoverable intervention and maintains its relationship to the priority content it is meant to clarify."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, administrative objectives, due-process constraints, delivery channels, accessibility duties, and accountable-record character of adverse-action notices are handled specifically and coherently."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Reducing equal-weight competition and isolating urgent fields plausibly improves recognition, but the size and distribution of the effect remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, operationally differentiated, and connected to notice-template rules, legal review, access safeguards, recoverability, and recipient testing."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses wrong-cause risk, concealment, loss of legal context, subgroup harm, page and scrolling costs, distrust, and heterogeneous case complexity."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It usefully distinguishes technical completeness from perceptual accessibility and identifies protected attention, rather than sentence simplification alone, as a separately testable administrative design lever."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A non-operative controlled comparison, concrete outcome measures, subgroup stratification, explicit rivals, halt criteria, and rollback make the proposal readily testable without changing benefits or obligations."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The initial test is low consequence and reversible, while the potential benefit concerns recognition of rights and deadlines; material risks are explicitly monitored and bounded before live use."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing public-benefit notice design or administrative communication practice."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing agency notice redesign, procedural-justice communication, and accessible document practice is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art review before making any novelty claim, while preserving the current proposal as a structurally testable hypothesis.","evidence_boundary":"The packet explicitly classifies prior art as unsearched and supplies no external novelty evidence."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Effectiveness and legal sufficiency have not yet been demonstrated in the target population and programs.","repair":"Execute the authorized preregistered comparison with affected-user participation and program-specific legal and accessibility review before any operational deployment.","evidence_boundary":"The causal benefit is explicitly hypothetical, and the packet supports only a non-operative first test."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, domain-specific, causally testable, adversarially robust, and safely bounded for a non-operative pilot. Its principal unresolved limitation is the absence of prior-art evidence, which does not undermine the closed-book structural judgment."}