{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["\"Protected Causal Gaps\" trace review","\"No matching\" event observed trace viewer collapsed events","trace viewer expected event not observed bounded interval collapse routine events","trace visualization absence expected transition telemetry coverage"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"no_result_note":"The exact proposal title produced no match; adjacent searches found explicit expected-but-missing trace findings and conventional missing-span/collapse features."},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["visualization missing events absence timeline expected event not occurred visualization research","event sequence visualization gaps missing event explicit absence","debugging concurrent systems trace visualization information overload user study","execution trace visualization collapse repetitive events causal debugging"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["Honeycomb trace waterfall collapse spans documentation","Eclipse Trace Compass hide lost events collapse repetitive events time graph documentation","Jaeger UI collapse spans trace timeline documentation critical path","Datadog trace waterfall collapse spans critical path documentation"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["distributed trace visualization missing events expected event absent timeline observability","concurrency debugging trace visualization causal relation missing event","trace viewer collapse repetitive events hide spans flame graph","trace visualization absence expected transition telemetry coverage"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Guardrail Posture","publisher":"Traccia","url":"https://traccia.ai/docs/platform/guardrails","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["Represents categories expected for a trace but not observed as explicit Missing findings.","Displays coverage-confidence information and explanatory context for missing categories.","Links findings to relevant spans, permits suppression of missing-category noise, and leaves underlying trace data unchanged.","Provides close component-level prior art for scoped absence reporting with confidence and recoverable raw evidence."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Trace Waterfall","publisher":"Honeycomb","url":"https://docs.honeycomb.io/reference/honeycomb-ui/query/trace-waterfall","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["Provides a waterfall representation of span relationships and duration.","Supports collapsing and expanding spans, search, zoom, and error highlighting.","Shows condensed trace metadata to reduce scrolling through a full waterfall.","Can warn that a trace is missing spans and offers reload/troubleshooting actions."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Trace Compass User Guide — Trace Compass Main Features","publisher":"Eclipse Foundation","url":"https://help.eclipse.org/latest/topic/org.eclipse.tracecompass.doc.user/doc/Trace-Compass-Main-Features.html","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Supports reversible collapsing of consecutive repetitive events and displays their repetition count.","Supports event filtering, time-range selection, and shaded selected intervals.","Represents lost events in histograms and allows their bars to be hidden or restored.","Provides close component-level prior art for counted suppression, recovery, interval framing, and telemetry-loss context."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Abstraction and mining of traces to explain concurrency bugs","publisher":"Springer Nature","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10703-015-0240-5","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Reports that manual inspection of concurrent traces is tedious and time-consuming.","States that concurrent traces are lengthy event sequences while only a small, generally non-contiguous subset is typically sufficient to explain erroneous behavior.","Introduces trace abstraction and pattern mining to reduce thousands of operations while preserving original behaviors and exposing order or atomicity violations.","Reports a bounded user study comparing bug-explanation patterns with source-code inspection."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The general problem is visible: primary research describes lengthy concurrent traces, a small non-contiguous explanatory subset, and tedious manual inspection, while production viewers provide collapse, summaries, search, and missing-span warnings. The narrower assertion that equal visual weight and lack of protected perceptual space specifically cause misdiagnosis was not directly established by the retained sources.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Traccia Guardrail Posture","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Makes expected-but-unobserved trace categories explicit, qualifies them with coverage confidence, links evidence to timeline spans, supports noise suppression, and preserves underlying trace data.","remaining_difference":"It presents missing-category findings and posture summaries, not a protected empty interval anchored between a selected causal predecessor and successor with routine events reversibly collapsed inside that interval."},{"name":"Honeycomb Trace Waterfall","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Combines trace relationships, condensed summaries, span collapse/expansion, search, error highlighting, and warnings about missing spans.","remaining_difference":"Collapse organizes existing span subtrees; the missing-span warning concerns trace completeness. Neither makes the scoped nonoccurrence of a user-specified expected transition the organizing visual gap between causal bounds."},{"name":"Eclipse Trace Compass","source_ids":["SRC3"],"overlap":"Offers counted collapsing of repetitive events, reversible filters, interval selection, and explicit lost-event context.","remaining_difference":"Its collapse is trace-type-specific and based on consecutive repetition, while selected ranges and lost-event bars are separate features; it does not combine them into a protected, semantically labeled absence with coverage and provenance."},{"name":"Concurrency-trace abstraction and bug-explanation mining","source_ids":["SRC4"],"overlap":"Reduces long concurrent traces to non-contiguous, order-sensitive explanatory patterns while preserving original behaviors and supports inspection of concurrency violations.","remaining_difference":"It computes abstract bug patterns across classified traces rather than providing a reversible perceptual empty state for an engineer-selected expected transition in one offline trace."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For single-trace concurrency review, a user-selected predecessor–expected-transition–successor relation can be rendered as a protected, reversible empty interval that simultaneously states the scoped nonoccurrence, elapsed time, collapsed-event count, telemetry coverage, clock or query uncertainty, and access to full provenance; the retained prior art supplies several of these elements separately but not this integrated representation.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified by finding an existing viewer or study that already combines causal bounding events, explicit expected-transition absence, reversible in-interval routine-event collapse, coverage or clock uncertainty, and immediate evidence recovery—or by a paired test showing no diagnostic benefit or materially more confusion about unobserved versus uncollected events.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, absence and missing-event terminology, established trace products and practices, repetitive-event collapse, lost telemetry, and concurrency-trace abstraction. Four opened sources span four publishers and include first-party, official, and primary-research material.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The specific perceptual mechanism is only partly evidenced, but the underlying problem—large concurrent traces containing a small, dispersed explanatory subset that is tedious to inspect—is directly supported, and deployed tools independently expose demand for collapse, summaries, and missing-span warnings.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The remaining integrated claim is distinguishable from missing-category cards, subtree collapse, repetitive-event filters, and mined bug patterns, and it yields measurable outcomes for causal-break identification and unobserved-versus-uncollected interpretation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Paired static renderings of six sanitized or synthetic traces with 6–10 engineers are bounded, reversible, and can measure identification accuracy, interpretation errors, expansion behavior, and accessibility without production integration. Prior research demonstrates that controlled comparisons of concurrency-debugging representations are feasible.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The authorized first step is an offline, read-only prototype using synthetic or sanitized data; it neither changes telemetry nor declares root cause. Immediate expansion, preserved raw evidence, and halts for incomplete collection, clock inconsistency, or unresolved queries address the most obvious authority and evidence-integrity risks.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This four-source public-web screen establishes only coarse researchability and adjacent prior art. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance, implementation feasibility at production scale, or realized diagnostic value; patent databases, source repositories, academic indexes, vendor features, and nonpublic systems may contain closer art."}