{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__tech_ethics_ai_governance","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"ed138cae32eb55d94a14882dbbc03983ec973fcc9a357bba6ba4a8d4d2d1020f","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The governance failure is independently observable as missed hazards, misread evidence gaps, and suppressed dissent, without relying on the archetype vocabulary."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Crowding, deliberate omission, protected absence, positive-form relationships, bounded recovery, and meaningful empty states correspond directly to specified review conditions."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The intervention targets perceptual competition, premature social convergence, chair dominance, and ambiguous evidence absence through plausible intermediate mechanisms."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All archetype components receive domain realizations, selected mechanisms retain their distinctive operations, and omitted material remains bounded and recoverable."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical effects and mapping claims are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or inferences; no unsupported outcome is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem and intervention have distinct falsifiers, and the crossover simulation separately tests baseline prevalence, causal benefit, and adverse effects."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Authority is limited to a non-production simulation, affected parties and prohibited actions are identified, and explicit halt and rollback conditions protect evidence, accessibility, and lower-power participants."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected absence is the active design element rather than a synonym for general simplification or risk prioritization."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal preserves auditability, provenance, uncertainty, dissent, legal obligations, affected-population context, and established approval authority."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The intermediate links are coherent and testable, though their effects on real governance judgments remain empirically unverified."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every component is translated into a concrete review artifact, procedure, boundary, measurement, recovery path, or safety guardrail."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses concealment, dense expert comparison, coercive silence, agenda-driven omission, retrieval failure, and false reassurance."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"It recasts review quality as partly an allocation of perceptual and deliberative space while preserving the domain's evidentiary duties."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A bounded crossover simulation specifies comparators, outcomes, adverse indicators, rollback conditions, and no production consequence."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The proposed simulation has limited direct exposure and strong safeguards, but selective omission and power-laden silence remain material risks requiring observation."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty cannot be supported from the closed-book packet."}},"weighted_total":90,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The candidate establishes structural distinctiveness but supplies no prior-art evidence for novelty.","repair":"Before making a novelty claim, compare the combined protected-review, labeled-absence, and dissent-silence design against established governance review formats and report both overlaps and differentiators.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book packet marks prior art as unsearched; this limitation does not undermine the bounded causal hypothesis."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is a structurally faithful, domain-safe, falsifiable transfer with a well-bounded simulation and unusually complete mechanism integration. Its principal unresolved limitation is novelty evidence, while causal effectiveness remains an explicitly testable hypothesis."}