{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__speech_language_pathology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"b15be47a3293d38ad6a79c03d93ff67303a857af134944f6bcf37cd24cb84ba9","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Premature partner entry is an independently observable domain problem rather than a restatement of response latency or the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Partner additions instantiate crowding, the protected formulation interval instantiates bounded absence, and the client's contribution is the positive form that the absence supports."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Withholding nonessential partner input directly preserves the client's turn and formulation opportunity; downstream communication effects are appropriately identified as hypotheses."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every source component is translated, context and communication access remain recoverable, and selected mechanisms have distinct roles with explicit removal consequences."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical frequency and outcome claims are bounded as hypotheses, the proposal discloses that prior art is unsearched, and no unsupported result is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate falsifiers test whether premature entry is a real barrier and whether protecting the interval improves outcomes without unacceptable harms."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Client consent and stop authority are explicit, urgent and accessibility support is exempt from withholding, and rollback conditions address distress, refusal, access failure, and safety needs."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The intervention uses deliberate, protected conversational absence to clarify and enable the client's turn while preserving necessary context."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal distinguishes aphasia, motor-speech, and AAC-relevant response channels and incorporates comprehension, access, repair, caregiver power, and clinical safety concerns."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The proximal link from reduced partner interference to preserved formulation opportunity is credible, while improvement in meaningful communication remains empirically unresolved."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The full component set receives operational domain realizations, including boundaries, interpretation checks, recoverability, context preservation, and effect testing."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate identifies strong alternative explanations, the power-sensitive analogy break, failure conditions, distinct falsifiers, and outcome-gaming risks."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It reframes delayed responding as a potentially crowded interactional interval, though deliberate wait time is already a recognizable neighboring intervention."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The alternating-block pilot specifies participants, observations, outcomes, comparison conditions, individual boundaries, and stopping criteria."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention is reversible and low-resource with strong safeguards, but silence can still convey evaluation or delay needed support when cues are ambiguous."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"No prior-art search or comparative evidence supports a novelty claim."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The central outcome effect remains unvalidated in the target setting.","repair":"Run the bounded within-client comparison and report communication success, independent initiation, distress, repair burden, and access failures rather than latency alone.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supports a testable causal hypothesis, not an established clinical effect."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Novelty relative to communication-partner training and wait-time practices is unknown.","repair":"Conduct a targeted prior-art comparison before making originality or differentiation claims.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate explicitly records prior art as unsearched."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier and no registered repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate achieves a strong structural and domain translation with a direct, bounded causal lever, complete safeguards, and discriminating falsifiers. Its empirical effectiveness and novelty remain research questions rather than integrity failures."}