{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__statistics_experimental_design","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"6f42e8ead9ce9bae62053674c20653fd9bfedce0e40e25b5933843494e371999","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The reporting problem is independently recognizable: equal initial salience can obscure a prespecified estimand and distort interpretation regardless of the source archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's defining structure by deliberately omitting competing material from a bounded initial surface so the retained confirmatory form becomes legible, while preserving recovery paths."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention acts directly on attention competition and evidential-status recognition, with a plausible pathway from reduced initial crowding to more accurate identification and decisions."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a domain realization, selected mechanisms have differentiated roles and counterfactual tests, and rejected mechanisms are excluded for substrate-specific reasons."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effectiveness claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported authority or fabricated result is presented."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers, and the protected format is compared against both a dense baseline and an all-visible hierarchical rival."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is bounded, safety-critical evidence is exempt from hiding, the initial test avoids live decisions, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect affected parties."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected omission, bounded emptiness, positive-form framing, recoverability, and audience testing are translated without reducing the intervention to generic simplification."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal correctly distinguishes estimands, evidential roles, uncertainty, multiplicity, diagnostics, protocol deviations, safety outcomes, and prespecified decision rules."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The attention pathway is coherent and rival-controlled, but its effect on inferential decisions remains an explicitly unvalidated hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete, operationally specific, and preserves the safety and interpretability constraints attached to deliberate absence."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts expert-density benefits, statistical literacy, incentive failures, selective reporting, simultaneous evidence needs, accessibility, and safety-signal suppression."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"The negative-space frame yields a distinct protected-surface intervention and testable rival, although it overlaps partly with established hierarchy and progressive-disclosure ideas."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The simulated randomized format pilot specifies feasible comparators, measurable interpretation outcomes, retrieval checks, safety outcomes, and rollback conditions."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The low-stakes pilot offers meaningful information value with strong safeguards, while selective emphasis and hidden diagnostic signals remain material deployment risks."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty is neither established nor inferred."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal has no evidence establishing novelty relative to statistical-reporting, layered-disclosure, or results-dashboard practices.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art review before making any novelty claim, while preserving the current unsearched label until that review is complete.","evidence_boundary":"Closed-book evaluation supports structural merit but cannot establish originality."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposed causal effect on interpretation and decisions remains unvalidated.","repair":"Run the specified randomized simulated-report study and examine both inferential benefits and noninferiority of safety detection and detail retrieval.","evidence_boundary":"The packet supplies a credible test design but no outcome data."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs; remaining uncertainty concerns validation and novelty evidence rather than attributable revision gains."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a strong, safety-bounded structural transfer with complete component translation, a credible causal test, and explicit adversarial constraints. Empirical effectiveness and novelty remain open research questions but are not misrepresented as established."}