{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"negative_space_design__linguistics_semiotics","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a reversible transcript renderer, typed silence states, preserved context, baseline, falsifiers, safeguards, and a bounded test. Protected visual absence makes response timing perceptible, which faithfully instantiates the archetype."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines the eligible setting, bounded response window, exit and reintroduction rules, consent and accessibility safeguards, baseline, falsifiers, and evaluation. Deliberate facilitator silence prevents premature prompt intrusion and creates participant response agency."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Specifies a predefined observation grammar, exhaustive typed states, protected null cells, recoverable context, accessible alternatives, baseline, falsifiers, and a comparative test. Framed spatial absence clarifies sign allocation without conflating absence with missingness."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines a staged review interface, permitted first-pass actions, context-reveal rules, reintroduction trigger, provenance handling, baseline, falsifiers, safeguards, and evaluation. Temporary answer-free space prevents inherited analyses from occupying independent judgment."},{"proposal_index":5,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines governed entry criteria, typed vacancy states, separate actionable paraphrases, recoverable candidates, validation-based reintroduction, baseline, falsifiers, safety limits, and testing. A protected authoritative vacancy prevents unvalidated candidates from falsely signifying equivalence."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses retrospective perceptual compression of recorded silence with a transcript display; Proposal 2 addresses live researcher intrusion into an elicitation response slot with a conversational withholding protocol."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 renders temporal gaps between conversational turns; Proposal 3 changes field observation records and an atlas to distinguish unsigned locations from missing survey data and reveal spatial sign allocation."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 exposes verified non-speech that dense transcripts obscure; Proposal 4 conceals existing analytic answers until a reviewer commits an independently attributable judgment."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 gives measured silence perceptual extent for sequence analysis; Proposal 5 reserves an authoritative terminology field to prevent an unvalidated candidate from acquiring the semiotic status of an approved equivalent."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 regulates live interviewer behavior to preserve response provenance; Proposal 3 structures spatial survey capture and display to preserve negative observations and clarify sign distribution."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 withholds new linguistic prompts from a consultant during data creation; Proposal 4 withholds prior labels from an annotator during retrospective quality review to reduce answer exposure."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 protects a temporary conversational interval so a participant can formulate or decline; Proposal 5 protects a continuing publication-state vacancy until terminology governance validates a direct equivalent."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 records empirically inspected absence in physical sign locations through a slot grammar and atlas; Proposal 4 creates temporary epistemic separation from existing annotations through staged interface disclosure."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 uses empty atlas cells to represent bounded observations of no sign and expose a spatial pattern; Proposal 5 uses a governed empty lexical slot to communicate lack of validated equivalence and prevent unauthorized term use."},{"proposal_a":4,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 4 temporarily hides an existing answer to elicit an independent review before revealing it; Proposal 5 withholds unvalidated candidates from publication because no answer yet has the authority required to occupy the equivalence field."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All five proposals are operationally complete, preserve necessary context and recoverability, make deliberate absence perform a testable causal role, and include meaningful baselines, rival comparisons, falsifiers, safeguards, and bounded evidence steps. Every pair differs in the affected problem, the intervention, and the causal path; shared use of omission or protected absence reflects the common archetype rather than duplication."}