{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":3,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B has stronger direct solvency evidence and a highly practical pilot, but Marlowe, Solvent, Securify, and Certora closely cover its problem and principal levers. A retains a more distinctive, falsifiable increment around a semantics-preserving arbitrage reduction and venue-scoped certification, despite greater modeling risk."},{"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 is tied to recognized contract-solvency properties, concrete verification precedents, identifiable governance, and a sharply bounded pilot. C's defining claim that venues or supervisors seek or misuse a universal strategy-solvency classifier remained unestablished, making its initial audit more exploratory."},{"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 direct external evidence for formal arbitrage analysis, computability limits in automated finance, exchange listing review, and explicit unresolved verifier outcomes. C is broader, combines heterogeneous strategy and contract settings, and lacks evidence for the deployed Boolean requirement it diagnoses."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A offers the best balance of external distinctiveness and research value. Its production baseline is still hypothetical and its financial reduction may fail, but those uncertainties are explicit and testable through a venue-model audit, independent proof review, and a non-live fixed-corpus pilot. B is more operationally grounded but more closely occupied by existing restricted-language, solvency-verification, and multi-status-analysis practices; C lacks adequate support for its defining deployed problem.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the preserved proposals and their supplied web-scrutiny records. It does not verify source contents independently, inspect proprietary venue workflows, establish world novelty, or infer treatment identity."}