{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design","judge_id":"J3","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":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"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 supported computability-boundary problem with feasible archived-model tests, but A's closest analogues reproduce nearly the entire causal lever and justify only an implementation evaluation. B retains a somewhat more distinctive controller-specific integration claim and defines sharper pilot endpoints, including false-SAFE outcomes, admission-boundary bypass, overstated labels, and ambiguous-verdict reduction. B's weaker adopter evidence narrows the advantage."},{"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 strongly evidenced and testable, but scrutiny classifies its intervention as established practice across hybrid verification, conditional model checking, explicit UNKNOWN protocols, and assurance review. C also faces close prior art, yet retains a coherent empirical question about whether one integrated, version-linked assurance record improves reproducibility and corrects material scope or fallback errors. C additionally has stronger controller-specific problem evidence and clearer regulatory adopter classes."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"B has the sharper quantitative contrast and falsifier, especially zero false SAFE and reduced ambiguous verdicts. C nevertheless has broader and higher-quality controller-specific evidence, supported rather than indeterminate authority paths, a four-week bounded study, and a more credible evaluation target centered on reproducible assurance classifications rather than claiming distinctiveness for a router assembled from heavily collided components. The margin is small because C's 'at least one correction' endpoint is comparatively weak."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","overall_rationale":"C is the best research candidate after scrutiny, although only narrowly over B. Its formal novelty is limited, but the remaining organization-level claim is externally distinguishable from the cited mathematical, tool, and regulatory precedents; it has credible FAA and HSE-linked adopter or authorizer roles, a reversible offline study, meaningful falsifiers, and no unresolved safety stop. Its study should strengthen the endpoint by preregistering reviewer-agreement and delay thresholds and defining what counts as a material correction. A is highly feasible but least distinctive because the underlying intervention is already established practice.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment is limited to the supplied preserved records and bounded public-web evaluations. The three proposals substantially overlap in problem framing, evidence, and intervention components, so distinctions depend mainly on the specificity of their remaining empirical claims and adopter paths. No proprietary workflows, internal prevalence data, or independent validation of the cited source interpretations were available."}