{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__veterinary_medicine","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"cbf355b4d30b8745bc15ea9951ce9b9ab60890a7e02f880efd90599b90b56506","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Rapid prompt stacking is a domain-native assessment and training problem with consequences independent of the archetype analogy."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Premature supplemental prompts are explicit competitors, and the bounded post-cue absence actively isolates the original cue and response opportunity."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Withholding handler-generated competition can improve attribution to the first cue; the candidate appropriately treats improved performance as a testable hypothesis rather than an established effect."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component has a coherent domain realization, while the load-bearing mechanisms retain deliberate omission, protected silence, state interpretation, recoverability, and exit triggers."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Efficacy and state-interpretation claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior art is explicitly unsearched, and no external evidence is fabricated."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether premature prompting is actually associated with failure, while the intervention falsifier separately tests benefit, attribution clarity, and welfare outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The protocol is confined to low-risk familiar-cue work, assigns approval and halt authority appropriately, excludes safety-critical uses, preserves necessary support, and specifies rollback."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"Protected temporal absence is the active intervention rather than a decorative analogy, and it has explicit boundaries, purpose, and reintroduction conditions."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal accounts for learning history, reinforcement, pain, sensory access, fear, contextual effects, behavioral ambiguity, professional oversight, and animal welfare."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Removing premature prompts plausibly improves cue attribution, but any improvement in learned performance remains uncertain because waiting can also expose incomplete learning or increase frustration."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and operational, with each realization tied to observable timing, preserved context, welfare interpretation, or recoverable assistance."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses rival causes, analogy limits, implementation failure, expectancy bias, inaccessible cues, unsafe latency, and distinct null outcomes."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Treating the response interval as protected negative space yields a clear diagnostic distinction between an animal failing a cue and a handler interrupting the opportunity to respond."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"The randomized within-session comparison is feasible and observable, though reliable welfare coding, individualized timing, observer agreement, and broader replication still require specification."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded low-risk trial has useful diagnostic potential and strong rollback provisions, but misreading freezing or delaying needed support remains consequential."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty is unsupported even though the transfer is conceptually distinctive."}},"weighted_total":87.5,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The proposal has no searched evidence for efficacy, prior art, or novelty.","repair":"Before making clinical or novelty claims, review relevant veterinary behavior and animal-learning literature and bound the proposal against established cue-latency and prompt-dependence protocols.","evidence_boundary":"The closed-book record supports structural fit and a cautious pilot hypothesis, not effectiveness, generalizability, or novelty."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"Observer classification of processing, freezing, confusion, and distress may be unreliable without operational definitions.","repair":"Predeclare species-appropriate behavioral indicators, timing rules, masked coding where feasible, and an inter-rater agreement criterion before interpretation.","evidence_boundary":"The candidate identifies the ambiguity but does not demonstrate that observers can resolve it reliably."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with unchanged identifiers, no predecessor revision, and no registered repairs to attribute."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally faithful, domain-aware, falsifiable, and conservatively bounded for animal welfare. Its principal unresolved issue is the acknowledged absence of external evidence and novelty verification, which does not invalidate the proposed low-risk test."}