{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"negative_space_design__disaster_management","considered_ids":["H1","H4"],"selected_id":"H1","dispositions":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","lane":"FINALIST","reason":"Despite substantial collision on incident filtering and reduced CAD views, the critic identifies a material, repairable residual: a dispatcher-side, automatically bounded trigger–safety-whitelist–assignment–exit lifecycle. That distinction is narrow, directly falsifiable, supported by CAD analogues and safety-critical display research, and addresses documented interface-management burden."},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","lane":"RESEARCH","reason":"The proposed opening-state diagnosis addresses a recognizable false-safety risk, but its remaining distinction is a broad integration of several established components, and the claimed 20% behavioral improvement has no direct supporting evaluation in the retrieved evidence."}],"selection_reason":"H1 offers the narrower and more testable differentiated opportunity. Its residual claim specifies concrete lifecycle triggers and safety-preservation constraints, whereas H4 depends on a broader aggregation and an unsupported behavioral-effect claim."}