{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__rhetoric","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"8dd4c44270607c1daa2e7e3f8e4c282baf0c264bafb2233e1e34a0b8a096f7c4","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The listener-comprehension problem is independently recognizable in rhetoric and does not depend on accepting the archetype analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Competing discourse material, deliberate cuts, protected silence, claim adjacency, recoverability, and audience-effect testing preserve the archetype's defining relations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Reversible cuts reduce attention competition, while bounded claim-adjacent pauses plausibly provide isolation and processing time linked to the stated outcomes."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All named components receive domain-specific realizations, and the selected mechanisms retain their distinctive operations without importing incompatible spatial or interface properties."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and novelty limits are disclosed, causal assertions are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, and no external validation or prior-art result is invented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The diagnosis and the intervention have separate observable falsifiers, with baseline and signposting-rival comparisons capable of defeating the proposal."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is bounded, reversible, consent-based, accessibility-preserving, and excludes high-stakes uses, coercive silence, and removal of required context."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal translates protected absence as an active relation between reduced competition, bounded silence, and clarified argumentative form."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The actors, substrate, outcomes, and safeguards are specific to live rhetorical delivery, argument structure, audience interpretation, and persuasive ethics."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention and processing chain is coherent and testable, but its effect remains an explicitly unvalidated hypothesis and the composed intervention does not isolate each ingredient."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component is assigned a concrete rhetorical function, including boundaries, meaning checks, recovery, accessibility, and context preservation."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate addresses rival causes, transfer limits, cultural and power-sensitive interpretations, accessibility failures, concealment risk, and rollback conditions."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It usefully reframes pauses and reversible omission as designed argumentative structure, though both practices are already recognizable within speech editing and delivery."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposed counterbalanced pilot, observable outcomes, comparator conditions, halt rules, and restoration procedure are readily operationalized."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"A low-stakes reversible pilot has plausible comprehension benefits and strong safeguards, while manipulation, oversimplification, and differential accessibility risks remain material."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so the packet supplies no evidence that the composition or application is novel."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The composition's novelty and empirical effect are unresolved.","repair":"During deep research, conduct a domain-specific prior-art review and preregister a factorial pilot that can distinguish the contributions of cutting, pausing, and their combination.","evidence_boundary":"The current record supports structural and causal plausibility only; it contains neither external prior-art findings nor observed treatment effects."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with no prior problem or causal-lever identifiers and no registered repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate passes every reject-first gate and qualifies for deep research. Its principal unresolved dimension is novelty evidence, while empirical validation should determine whether the composed mechanisms outperform ordinary delivery and explicit signposting."}