{"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__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"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 component-level prior art. C is the stronger research candidate because it specifies a narrower independently reviewed record, has fully supported adopter and authorizer roles, and proposes a compact 20-case pilot aimed at material corrections and reproducibility. B has a credible falsifier and strong component feasibility, but its adopter gate remains indeterminate and its end-to-end routing package overlaps more directly with conditional model checking, decidable-language 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 claim about whether a unified, version-linked computability and fallback record changes real assurance interpretations. A is highly feasible and testable, but scrutiny characterizes its problem-intervention package as established practice across hybrid-system boundary mapping, conditional verification, explicit UNKNOWN states, and safety-tool governance. A's remaining value is primarily organization-specific implementation evaluation."},{"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 and A are both heavily anticipated by prior art, but B retains a somewhat more specific controller-oriented integration claim combining enforced admission, guarantee-labelled routing, independent review, and zero-false-SAFE evaluation. A's package is even more directly covered by established mathematical, tool-interface, and certification practices. A has stronger implementation and adopter evidence, but that advantage does not outweigh its lower external distinctiveness as a research candidate."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","overall_rationale":"C offers the best balance of a technically supported problem, a credible authority path, a sharply bounded and reversible pilot, a genuine reproducibility-and-correction falsifier, and a remaining contrastive claim not fully absorbed by the cited prior art. Its novelty is limited to workflow integration and empirical assurance effects, but that increment is clearer and better institutionally grounded than B's, while A is principally an evaluation of established practice.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. It cannot verify source accuracy beyond those records, inspect proprietary workflows or omitted literature, establish prevalence of forced-Boolean behavior, or infer world novelty, adoption willingness, cost, or realized safety impact."}