{"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__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both address a well-supported computability boundary with feasible archived-model tests, but A substantially overlaps established decidability mapping, explicit UNKNOWN interfaces, conditional model checking, and assurance practice. B retains a somewhat more distinctive contextual integration claim and a stronger preregisterable test using enforced admission, guarantee-labelled routing, boundary-bypass checks, and zero false-SAFE tolerance."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"Both retain only incremental workflow claims amid close component-level prior art. B has the sharper contrastive endpoint—reduced ambiguous or overstated verdicts with no false SAFE result—and the more discriminating corpus design spanning finite-state and unrestricted cases with bounded ground truth. C has broader authority evidence and a reproducibility endpoint, but its claim of correcting at least one misstatement is less stringent and more dependent on finding a defect in the archive."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C is more externally distinctive because scrutiny found adjacent rather than nearly end-to-end established practice and left a concrete empirical claim about a unified, version-linked assurance record. Its four-week replay includes independent reproducibility, material-correction, delay, fidelity, and safety falsifiers, while A is principally an implementation evaluation of mechanisms already jointly anticipated by conditional model checking, standard UNKNOWN semantics, scoped reachability tools, and certification guidance."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest research candidate by a narrow margin. The underlying problem and implementation components are well evidenced, the remaining novelty is appropriately limited to contextual integration, and its pilot most directly tests a meaningful operational improvement against explicit failure criteria. Its chief weakness is that the target organization's forced-Boolean behavior and committed authority remain unverified, so adopter identification should precede the pilot.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and web-scrutiny records. The records differ in sources, corpus size, phrasing, and prior-art characterization, and none verifies a named adopting organization or the claimed prevalence of forced-Boolean behavior. Consequently, distinctions between B and C are modest and do not establish world novelty or deployment value."}