{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__religious_studies_theology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"9b601ab663e8acf32e9cfbf1fb6f499ecdc7e12fb93cc655f652c62c11f2c2f9","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The seminar problem is independently specified through observable crowding, response preemption, flattened interpretation, and concentrated participation rather than being defined merely as an absence of the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the defining structure of deliberate omission, protected absence, a relationship to the remaining positive form, explicit boundaries, recoverability, and effect testing."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Reversible removal of competing explanation and bounded facilitator silence plausibly act on the stated bottlenecks of interpretive attention and preempted response formulation, though the downstream effects remain hypotheses."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, while selected mechanisms have distinct load-bearing, supporting, or guardrail roles and rejected mechanisms are excluded with counterfactual justification."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects and transfer claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is explicitly unsearched, no citations or established-effect claims are fabricated, and the proposal calls for comparative testing."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether crowding and preemption are actually present, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether omission and protected silence improve interpretation or participation without unacceptable confusion or coercion."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Instructor authority is limited to pacing and materials; student disclosure authority, accessibility routes, preserved context, opt-out protections, halt conditions, and reversible rollback are explicit."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention uses absence as an active, bounded, meaning-bearing element and preserves the archetype's central invariants."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal attends to provenance, translation, historical setting, contested interpretation, multitradition comparison, classroom authority, and risks of compelled religious disclosure."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proximal pathway from reduced competition and delayed speech to private formulation is credible, but gains in interpretive accuracy and participation equity require empirical confirmation."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, mutually coherent, and reinforced by operational mechanism choices."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses missing-scaffolding counterevidence, variable meanings of silence, authority asymmetry, context loss, access barriers, and divergent accuracy and participation outcomes."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The negative-space frame adds protected, interpretable silence and reversible omission beyond ordinary slide simplification, while remaining adjacent to established pacing and cognitive-load practices."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposed pilot is bounded, reversible, observable, compared with an ordinary baseline, and equipped with halt and restoration procedures."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"Implementation cost and reversibility are favorable, but silence and selective omission retain meaningful risks involving anxiety, unequal preparation, coercion, and instructor-controlled framing."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing seminar pedagogy, wait-time methods, reflective writing, or discussion protocols."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing religious-studies pedagogy and broader seminar methods is unknown.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, compare the composed intervention with documented wait-time, reflective-writing, primary-source pedagogy, contemplative pedagogy, and structured-participation approaches.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports structural promise and testability, not novelty or demonstrated educational effect."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, domain-sensitive transfer that makes omission and protected silence causally relevant, preserves essential context, separates diagnosis from intervention testing, and supplies credible authority and rollback safeguards. Its principal unresolved issue is external novelty evidence rather than structural quality."}