{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both address a well-supported computability boundary with safe, bounded pilots, but A's core package is closely matched by established decidability mapping, conditional model checking, explicit UNKNOWN interfaces, and assurance practice. B retains a somewhat more distinctive and sharply falsifiable contextual claim about an enforced controller/property admission boundary and guarantee-labelled four-mode routing, although its actual adopter remains unverified."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A is principally an evaluation of already-established verification and abstention practice. C also rests on established components, but its unified, version-linked record spanning model semantics, quantifiers, computability status, admission constraints, analyzer guarantees, fallback, and independent review leaves a clearer incremental research question. C additionally has credible regulatory adopter roles and a bounded reproducibility-and-correction test."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B has the tighter operational falsifier and more concrete routing endpoints, but conditional model checking and product-level result protocols closely anticipate much of that router. C's cross-method assurance record is broader than any single close analogue found, has better-supported adopter and authority paths, and tests reviewer reproducibility, material corrections, and decision delay. The advantage is limited because both remaining claims are contextual workflow integrations rather than new verification mechanisms."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest externally scrutinized research candidate because it combines a supported controller-safety problem, adjacent rather than package-level prior art, identifiable regulatory adopters and authorizers, a clear incremental contrastive claim, real failure conditions, and a reversible four-week archived-design pilot. Its novelty boundary is appropriately narrow: the worthwhile question is whether one integrated assurance record improves reproducibility and corrects material scope or fallback errors without excessive delay, not whether computability boundaries or UNKNOWN verdicts are new.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. The searches were bounded and did not exhaust proprietary workflows, patents, paywalled standards, internal certification records, or all regional literature. All three organizational baselines remain partly hypothetical, so scores reflect research-candidate quality rather than demonstrated deployment need or world novelty."}