{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__ethnography_qualitative_methods","considered_ids":["H1","H3","H4"],"selected_id":"H1","dispositions":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","lane":"FINALIST","reason":"Despite substantial collision with established saturation methods, the critic identifies a narrow, material, and falsifiable residual: an enforced three-state contract that reserves exact exhaustion for finite eligible frames and reports bounded no-novelty evidence as unknown. Direct sources strongly support the underlying problem and precisely delimit the residual claim."},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","lane":"RESEARCH","reason":"The safety problem is recognizable, but support is only moderate and the remaining distinction is a broad integration of adaptive fieldwork, finite-state authoring, model checking, quarantine, and reviewer disclosure rather than one tightly isolated contrast."},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","lane":"RESEARCH","reason":"The critic finds strong adjacent mechanisms across restricted-language verification, policy enforcement, provenance, and fallback analysis, while the qualitative-specific multi-mode routing pattern remains comparatively broad and has only moderate problem support."}],"selection_reason":"H1 offers the narrowest falsifiable distinction, the strongest directly sourced problem support, and a clearly bounded residual claim. Its collision is repairable because selection is confined to enforced output semantics and finite-frame-only certification, not the already established saturation machinery."}