{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__sport_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"41a378bba7ab5c6cdac61977fabbeacaa0e0dd430940fdd8b6f4f796fb1dea2b","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem is independently specified through observable feedback crowding, absent self-estimation, and no-cue performance deficits rather than being inferred solely from the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Protected omission, interpretive room, positive-form focus, boundaries, meaning checks, and recoverable reintroduction correspond directly to the archetype's defining structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention acts on the proposed bottleneck by reserving post-repetition attention for intrinsic sensing and athlete-generated error estimation, while acknowledging that effectiveness remains hypothetical."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a domain realization, selected mechanisms have distinct functions and counterfactual necessity, and rejected mechanisms are not forced into the proposal."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is marked unsearched, and the candidate does not present unsupported effectiveness or novelty as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether the diagnosed crowding and deficit exist, while the intervention falsifier separately tests understood interval delivery, learning outcomes, and adverse effects against comparators."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority, consent, opt-out rights, safety exclusions, immediate overrides, stopping conditions, and rollback to ordinary feedback are clearly assigned."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Absence is the active intervention, with an explicit omission target, protected interval, focal relationship, boundary, interpretation check, and reintroduction rule."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal is expressed in motor-learning practice, augmented feedback, intrinsic sensory information, error estimation, retention, transfer, coaching authority, and skill-risk constraints."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention and self-estimation pathway is coherent and testable, but its learning benefit remains uncertain and may vary by expertise, task, and feedback need."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, domain-specific, and operationally connected to the protocol rather than serving as a label-matching exercise."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts novice dependence, error stabilization, power-laden silence, substitute displays, adherence failure, accessibility, and the nearest rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The negative-space frame adds protected interpretation, meaning diagnosis, and athlete-responsive reintroduction beyond generic feedback reduction, though it remains close to established feedback-scheduling concepts."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A consented counterbalanced pilot, comparator, outcome families, halt criteria, transfer assessment, and retention assessment are specified, but timing, instruments, and safe bounds still require protocol definition."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The reversible low-risk pilot offers plausible learning value with strong safeguards, while delayed correction and distress remain meaningful monitored hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The packet explicitly marks prior art as unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing motor-learning feedback protocols is not established."}},"weighted_total":86.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Distinctiveness from existing feedback-frequency, bandwidth-feedback, self-controlled-feedback, and guided self-estimation protocols is unresolved.","repair":"Conduct a bounded prior-art comparison and state whether protected, prebriefed self-evaluation windows with athlete-responsive reintroduction constitute a distinct protocol or a known variant.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet identifies prior art as unsearched, so no novelty conclusion is warranted here."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior repair record; neither the problem identifier nor the causal-lever identifier changed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-grounded, causally coherent, falsifiable, and safety-bounded. Its principal unresolved issue is evidentiary novelty rather than proposal integrity."}