{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__art_aesthetics","considered_ids":["H1","H3"],"selected_id":null,"dispositions":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","lane":"DIFFUSION","reason":"Substantial collision with established interactive-system model checking, safety reachability analysis, automated flash-hazard testing, and museum safety review. The residual claim is chiefly domain integration and workflow adoption, with only moderate problem support."},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","lane":"DIFFUSION","reason":"Substantial collision with scope-complete analysis, formal trace equivalence, interactive conformance testing, and existing software-art conservation workflows. The remaining distinction is a domain-specific acceptance certificate and governance layer rather than a differentiated technical treatment."}],"selection_reason":"Neither hypothesis presents a sufficiently narrow differentiated opportunity beyond combining established mechanisms with an art-institution workflow; both critics recommend the diffusion lane and identify only moderately supported domain-integration residuals."}