{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":"The defining deployed problem—a venue or supervisor seeking universal pathwise solvency classification or collapsing non-verdicts into Boolean decisions—was not externally established; the proposed workflow audit must confirm it before intervention research is justified."},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A has a better-supported domain problem, a sharper matched halting-to-arbitrage contrast, and a directly falsifiable sandbox test. C has credible authorities and a sensible audit, but scrutiny did not establish its defining universal-classifier or Boolean-conflation premise."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both are bounded, safe, and researchable, but A retains the more distinctive scientific increment: a semantics-matched arbitrage reduction for one venue model. B is closer to established restricted financial DSLs, ternary analyzers, bounded solvency tools, and real protocol verification, leaving mainly an operational integration claim."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__C","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B has direct external evidence for financially meaningful solvency verification, identifiable operator-side authority, explicit measurable thresholds, and a concrete 30-contract falsification pilot. C's broader strategy-and-market-path formulation is less semantically settled and first requires evidence that the diagnosed workflow exists."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A offers the strongest balance of distinctiveness and research value after scrutiny. Its exact production baseline remains hypothetical, but the underlying computability and arbitrage-analysis problem, plausible adopter path, explicit contrast against adjacent work, decisive falsifiers, and independently reviewed no-live-impact experiment are all credible. B is a strong runner-up but substantially overlaps existing verification techniques and restricted-language practice; C is gated by failure to establish its defining organizational problem.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. The public-web searches were bounded and excluded proprietary venue specifications, internal workflows, patents, and exhaustive multilingual literature, so distinctiveness is contrastive rather than a claim of world novelty. Integer ratings use a 1–5 scale, with 5 strongest."}