{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__security_intelligence","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"24dd91a24d07c9597b0f88daf9cee2487dc45504c1d05ae456a225145fab1e32","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The watch-floor failure is independently specified through observable display crowding, warning-recognition delay, and ambiguous blank states rather than inferred solely from the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Competing content, deliberate omission, protected absence, clarified positive form, diagnosed emptiness, recoverability, and effect testing correspond directly to the archetype structure without collapsing into generic prioritization."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Recoverable thinning and enforced spacing plausibly reduce perceptual competition, while diagnosed empty states address the separate false-reassurance pathway. The proposal appropriately treats the resulting performance effect as a testable hypothesis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, selected mechanisms retain their distinctive operations, rejected mechanisms are explicitly bounded, and the load-bearing composition is coherent."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"No empirical performance or novelty claim is presented as established. Structural claims are labeled as inference or hypothesis, uncertainty is explicit, and validation is deferred to controlled replay."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether density is actually associated with warning failures, whereas the intervention falsifier separately tests whether protected absence improves outcomes without degrading recovery, diagnosis, or accessibility."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The first step is nonoperational and jointly authorized, mandatory context is exempt from suppression, affected parties and prohibited actions are named, and concrete halt and rollback conditions are supplied."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal uses absence as an active, bounded intervention linked to what remains, rather than merely simplifying or reprioritizing the interface."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"It preserves provenance, confidence, dissent, collection health, legal caveats, escalation duties, auditability, and the expert need for recoverable comparison."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The perceptual-competition pathway is coherent and the empty-state pathway is well separated, but the claimed operational benefit remains unvalidated and rival causes may dominate."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The complete component set is translated into concrete display rules, recovery behavior, status semantics, accessibility protections, and evaluation measures."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":3,"reason":"The candidate anticipates threshold gaming, encoded bias, false reassurance, expert comparison loss, and overreaction, though those risks still require empirical stress testing."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It reframes alert overload from a demand for stronger salience into a governed absence problem while also exposing blank-state ambiguity as a distinct safety concern."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"Matched nonoperational replay, an unchanged baseline, specified outcome measures, shadow deployment, and rollback make the proposal directly testable."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible first test offers useful evidence at limited operational risk, but live suppression could create consequential misses or institutional bias if later controls prove inadequate."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty evidence is available in the closed-book packet."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The causal benefit is plausible but rests on an unvalidated relationship between display density and warning performance.","repair":"Execute the specified matched replay with predefined scenario matching, outcome definitions, and subgroup analysis for expert workflows before any operational suppression decision.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports structural plausibility and test design, not an empirical performance conclusion."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"No evidence supports a novelty claim or establishes how the composition differs from existing intelligence-dashboard practices.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review covering watch-floor displays, alert triage, human-factors warning design, and diagnosed no-data states before asserting novelty.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate accurately labels prior art as unsearched; novelty therefore remains unevidenced rather than disproven."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs or revisions from which improvement could be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong structural transfer with unusually complete component translation, explicit mechanism selection, distinct falsifiers, and conservative authority boundaries. Its empirical effect and novelty remain open research questions, but those uncertainties are bounded rather than fabricated and do not undermine the proposed nonoperational test."}