{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"negative_space_design__neuroscience","considered_ids":["H1","H2","H5"],"selected_id":"H1","dispositions":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","lane":"FINALIST","reason":"Despite substantial component-level collision, the critic identifies a material, falsifiable residual treatment claim: difficulty-determined stimulus-free gaps during post-stroke somatosensory discrimination, tested against equal-duration active filler for selective 24-hour retention benefit. Direct sources support the clinical problem and adjacent mechanisms without establishing this full contrast."},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","lane":"COLLISION","reason":"Clinical EEG products already provide the central reversible selected-channel display and full-view restoration workflow in high-channel-count intracranial monitoring. The residual is chiefly a validation package adding anatomical context and safety/agreement outcomes, not a sufficiently differentiated treatment mechanism."},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","lane":"REJECT","reason":"Adaptive BEARS already operationalizes patient-specific, performance-adaptive silence before aphasia naming cues and compares it with immediate cueing. Only a distress-triggered stop rule and paired distress/generalization outcomes remain, which the critic characterizes as a narrow safety-and-evaluation distinction rather than a distinct treatment mechanism."}],"selection_reason":"H1 offers the strongest eligible differentiated opportunity: a recognizable rehabilitation problem, a narrow prospective contrast, an explicit active comparator and delayed endpoint, and a material residual claim not established by the critic's direct sources. H2 substantially reproduces an existing workstation interaction, while H5 collides with an existing adaptive aphasia-treatment protocol."}