{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"negative_space_design__information_theory","hypothesis_id":"H4","search_queries":["IEEE Transactions Information Theory author guidelines supplementary material appendices main results","scientific article main text supplementary material reader comprehension experiment results","multiverse analysis specification curve supplementary materials selective reporting comparisons","technical paper progressive disclosure appendix reader comprehension study","site:itsoc.org information theory author supplementary material appendix paper self contained","patent scientific document progressive disclosure supplementary results main text","seductive details scientific text comprehension experiment redundant information review","multiverse analysis all reasonable analyses primary paper Steegen 2016"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Information for Authors","publisher":"IEEE Information Theory Society","url":"https://dev.itsoc.org/it-trans/author-info","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["IEEE Transactions on Information Theory permits supplementary additional tables, figures, data, multimedia, and code.","Supplements must be submitted with the manuscript for review and referenced from the paper, establishing a discipline-specific recoverability mechanism."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"IEEE Transactions on Networking Policies and Guidelines","publisher":"IEEE Communications Society","url":"https://www.comsoc.org/publications/journals/ieee-tnet/policies-guidelines","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Reviewed appendices may be published as supplementary material alongside an IEEE paper.","The main body must remain self-contained, closely paralleling a context-preservation test for moving secondary material."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Prepare Supplementary Materials","publisher":"IEEE Author Center","url":"https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/create-your-ieee-journal-article/prepare-supplementary-materials/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["IEEE specifies separately labeled supplementary files and publication of accepted supplements with the article.","IEEE recommends descriptive README material that identifies components and expected outputs, supporting recoverable and interpretable offloading."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Specification Curve Analysis","publisher":"Nature Human Behaviour","url":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0912-z","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Specification-curve analysis identifies theoretically justified, statistically valid, non-redundant specifications and displays them so readers can see consequential analytic decisions.","The method shows that comparator results can carry robustness information that a claim-centered cut might wrongly classify as redundant."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis","publisher":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691616658637","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Multiverse analysis organizes results across reasonable data-processing choices because selecting one analysis can hide sensitivity from readers.","The article itself places detailed material in an online supplement, demonstrating layered presentation while warning against removing inferentially consequential alternatives."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning","publisher":"ERIC record for Journal of Educational Psychology","url":"https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ576496","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Four experiments involving 357 undergraduates found that expository passages with interesting but irrelevant details produced poorer main-idea recall and transfer than versions without those details.","This supports the general attention-competition mechanism but does not test technical-paper supplements, estimator comparisons, recoverability, or qualification recall."]}],"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"IEEE reviewed-supplement workflow","similarity":"Information-theory and neighboring IEEE venues already allow secondary tables, figures, data, and appendices to be moved into referenced, peer-reviewed supplementary files while requiring the main article to remain self-contained.","remaining_difference":"The located guidance does not operationalize redundancy through a claim-centered context-preservation checklist or measure identification time and qualification recall.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},{"name":"Specification-curve and multiverse reporting","similarity":"These practices organize a large family of comparison results around a focal inference and use supplementary detail while preserving access to alternatives.","remaining_difference":"They prioritize complete disclosure of reasonable analytic alternatives and robustness structure rather than editorially cutting redundant information-theoretic bounds.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},{"name":"Seductive-details removal experiments","similarity":"Controlled experiments already test whether removing competing, nonessential material improves recognition and comprehension of central scientific ideas.","remaining_difference":"The removed material is irrelevant instructional detail, not potentially inferential bounds or estimators retained in a recoverable supplement.","source_ids":["S6"]}],"overlapping_components":["Selection of claim-central material for the main narrative","Movement of secondary results or appendices to linked supplementary files","Recoverability through explicit in-paper references","Peer review of offloaded technical material","Self-contained-main-text or context-preservation requirement","Reduction of attention competition from noncentral detail","Preservation of robustness information across alternative analyses"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"For information-theory manuscripts specifically, a formal claim-centered context-preservation test for moving redundant bound or estimator comparisons to a linked supplement will reduce time to identify the operative result by at least 20% without inferior qualification recall, beyond ordinary IEEE supplementary-material and self-contained-main-text practice.","claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim would be falsified by prior evidence of the same rule and dual reader endpoints in information-theory or closely comparable mathematical manuscripts, or by an adequately powered experiment finding less than a 20% identification-time improvement or worse qualification recall after the cuts.","problem_support":"WEAK","recommendation":"DIFFUSION_LANE","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded web search does not establish or imply world novelty. It found the intervention's core publication workflow to be established practice, while the narrower discipline-specific checklist and reader-test endpoints were not located; patents, non-indexed editorial systems, unpublished studies, non-English literature, and sources outside the searched terminology remain unexcluded."}