{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"negative_space_design__behavioral_economics","considered_ids":["H2","H5"],"selected_id":"H5","dispositions":[{"hypothesis_id":"H2","lane":"COLLISION","reason":"The proposal substantially collides with established reflection periods, cooling-off mechanisms, and commitment-contract research. Its remaining loss-framed pre-confirmation conjunction is falsifiable but has only moderate problem support and conflicts with direct regulatory practice favoring immediate activation of protective commitments."},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","lane":"FINALIST","reason":"The critic identifies a strong, directly sourced problem—missing observations being mistaken for true zero—and a narrow, testable residual comparison between cause-matched oversight actions and an equally salient generic warning. Existing systems substantially overlap, but the controlled regulator-like outcome comparison remains material and repairable."}],"selection_reason":"H5 offers the clearest differentiated opportunity: a recognizable and strongly supported failure mode, a precise intervention contrast, and concrete behavioral outcomes. Its collision concerns established components rather than the exact causal comparison, whereas H2 relies on a more conjunctive distinction with weaker problem support and contrary design conventions."}