{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"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__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"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 feasible archived-model tests. A is more directly collided by conditional model checking, explicit-UNKNOWN interfaces, hybrid-system boundary mapping, and established assurance practice. B retains a somewhat more distinctive controller-specific integration claim around mechanically enforced admission and guarantee-labelled routing, although its unnamed adopter and substantial component-level overlap limit 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's remaining value is principally an organization-specific evaluation of an already established scope-gating and abstention workflow. C narrows its claim to whether one version-linked assurance artifact improves reproducibility and corrects material scope or fallback errors, supplies a concrete four-week falsifier, and has credible regulated-sector authority paths. That leaves C more externally distinctive and researchable despite extensive adjacent prior art."},{"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 a strong zero-false-SAFE pilot and enforceable routing claim, but its proposed package closely composes known decidable fragments, bounded checking, UNKNOWN protocols, conditional coverage, and proof review, while its adopter gate remains indeterminate. C tests a more sharply bounded empirical claim about an integrated decision artifact, reviewer reproducibility, material corrections, and review delay, with better-supported authorizer classes and explicit semantic-fidelity failure conditions."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__engineering_design__C","overall_rationale":"C is the best candidate after scrutiny. The underlying universal-verification problem is supported, the theoretical mechanisms are correctly treated as prior art, and the remaining contribution is an explicit, falsifiable workflow claim rather than a novelty claim about computability. Its 20-design offline pilot is bounded and reversible, measures reproducibility, corrections, safety errors, and delay, and has credible FAA, HSE, engineering, and independent-safety authority paths. No fatal safety or feasibility issue remains for the proposed observational pilot.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. Treatment identities and earlier outcomes were not inferred. Public-web evidence cannot resolve proprietary workflow overlap, actual adopter commitment, prevalence of forced-Boolean behavior, or fidelity of any target organization's controller and environment models."}