{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":3,"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":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both retain only a contextual integration claim after close prior art. C is the stronger candidate because its contrastive claim is narrowly tied to reproducible classifications and material corrections, its 20-design pilot is bounded, and its adopter and authority path is supported by both FAA and HSE evidence. B has a similarly testable router but weaker adopter evidence and particularly close collisions with conditional model checking, decidable-fragment enforcement, and established UNKNOWN protocols."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C preserves a moderately distinctive empirical workflow claim despite substantial adjacent prior art. A's same problem and causal lever are already represented across hybrid-automata boundary mapping, conditional model checking, explicit UNKNOWN interfaces, scoped reachability tools, and assurance guidance; its remaining organization-specific implementation evaluation is worthwhile but less externally distinctive."},{"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":"B is preferable because its enforced admission-and-routing package retains a narrower but clearer incremental claim and a rigorous falsifier based on false-SAFE results, boundary bypass, label overstatement, and ambiguity reduction. A has stronger implementation and adopter evidence, but scrutiny characterizes its overall problem-intervention package as established practice, leaving less research value beyond local implementation evaluation."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","overall_rationale":"C offers the best balance of supported technical need, externally credible authority roles, a precise remaining contrastive claim, and a reversible four-week test. Its novelty is not the computability theory or individual status mechanisms; it is the empirically testable integration of model semantics, quantifiers, guarantees, admission constraints, inconclusive outcomes, and fallback governance into one independently reviewed record. The evidence does not establish the alleged forced-Boolean behavior as prevalent, but that uncertainty is directly addressable in the proposed archived-design pilot and is not a fatal feasibility or safety issue.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved records and external evaluations. The proposals differ in search sources, pilot corpus size, and specificity of the hypothesized organizational baseline, so comparisons partly reflect evidentiary framing. No treatment identity, earlier outcome, repository material, or evidence outside these bundles was used."}