{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"negative_space_design__rhetoric","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, observable moderator contamination, a bounded silence protocol, framing and reintroduction rules, safeguards, falsifiers, and a feasible test. Deliberate absence prevents moderator speech from seeding warrants, making audience-originated inference observable."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully defines the closed-binary problem, protected residual field, preserved context, population rule, safety limits, falsifiers, and test. The initially empty region actively prevents visual exhaustiveness and creates space for participant-originated alternatives before comparison."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Specifies the correction-displacement problem, bounded channel pause, message classifications, exemptions, queue recovery, resumption triggers, safety authority, and evaluation. Protected temporal absence keeps the correction focal by removing subsequent institution-originated competition."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines annotation-driven attention contamination, a reversible two-state presentation, context and accessibility exemptions, reader-controlled reveal, comparison records, falsifiers, and a pilot. Temporary omission of interpretive apparatus protects the source's first perceptual field."},{"proposal_index":5,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines accidental claim-evidence grouping, spacing tokens, protected unmarked bands, overflow and accessible fallbacks, authority constraints, falsifiers, and matching tests. Absence directly encodes argumentative separation through proximity and protected whitespace."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses moderator-seeded warrants with bounded conversational silence so independent inference becomes observable; Proposal 2 addresses binary option closure with a participant-fillable spatial residual field so omitted alternatives enter deliberation."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 withholds moderator explanation during live argument testing to diagnose warrant origin; Proposal 3 pauses routine institutional publishing after a correction so subsequent messages do not displace it."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 protects response time from facilitator contamination to elicit an unstated premise; Proposal 4 temporarily hides annotations during reading so the primary discourse, rather than commentary, organizes initial attention."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 uses temporal conversational silence to reveal whether audiences supply a warrant; Proposal 5 uses persistent spatial gaps to prevent visible evidence from being assigned to the wrong claim."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 counters false exhaustiveness by reserving a spatial field that participants later populate; Proposal 3 counters correction displacement by temporarily suppressing routine outbound channel traffic."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 leaves a region open for new alternatives before choice; Proposal 4 clears existing commentary from a first-reading state and later restores it, without soliciting additions to an option set."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 uses one labeled, fillable residual region to challenge an authored option partition; Proposal 5 uses repeated, unfillable spacing boundaries to preserve authored claim-evidence mappings."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 protects a public correction from later institutional messages through a channel-level publication pause; Proposal 4 protects initial reading from simultaneous interpretive cues through reversible annotation hiding."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 creates a temporary quiet interval in a sequential communication stream to preserve correction salience; Proposal 5 creates stable spatial separation within one simultaneous document to prevent evidentiary misgrouping."},{"proposal_a":4,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 4 temporarily omits recoverable commentary to distinguish unaided noticing from prompted interpretation; Proposal 5 keeps all substantive material visible but separates claim units with protected whitespace so support relations are read correctly."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All five proposals are operationally complete and instantiate absence as a bounded, purposeful causal element while preserving necessary context, accessibility, recoverability, and empirical checks. Their affected problems, interventions, and causal paths are mutually distinct: warrant-origin contamination, binary option closure, correction displacement, annotation-directed first reading, and claim-evidence misassociation."}