{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":"The defining deployed problem—a universal Boolean strategy-solvency requirement or actual conflation of inconclusive results—was not externally established; the record itself makes workflow audit a prerequisite."}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B has closer prior art and therefore less technical distinctiveness, but it is the stronger research candidate overall: solvency and liquidity verification are directly evidenced, adopter and authority paths are clearer, and the 30-contract audit has crisp operational endpoints. A's arbitrage-specific reduction is more distinctive, yet its universal-classifier baseline and financial-semantic preservation are more speculative."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B supplies stronger evidence for the target financial property, a more concrete institutional use case, and a bounded pilot that can test categorical-error reduction. C broadens the target to arbitrary strategies and market paths without evidence that the defining classifier requirement exists, while much of its scope-and-status intervention is already implemented in verification tools."},{"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 narrower, explicit arbitrage claim, relevant economic-security prior art, a reproducible reduction target, and a specified bounded prototype. C has a broader and less semantically tractable solvency formulation, and its own scrutiny found the supported-problem gate indeterminate."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best balance of a meaningful externally supported problem, credible authorizers, a genuine operational contrast despite close technical prior art, strong falsifiers, and a safe finite evidence step. Its value lies in testing whether guarantee-aware routing improves an actual admission workflow, not in claiming novelty for restricted verification, explicit UNKNOWN states, or solvency analysis themselves.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the three supplied preserved records and their reported web scrutiny. Source claims were not independently reopened, scoring-scale anchors were not supplied, and treatment identities and prior internal outcomes were not inferred."}