{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__B","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":3,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":"No named service or direct evidence establishes the hypothesized universal binary requirement or timeout-to-NO behavior, so the proposed intervention lacks a verified target pending the initial audit."},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both reduce to established computability and abstention practices, but A has somewhat stronger external support for its repository context and passes the supported-problem gate. B's operational premise remains wholly untied to a named noncompliant service, making its bounded test conditional on first finding the problem."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C has direct first-party evidence that Maple's integer-equation interface conflates no solutions with inability to find solutions, plus a concrete adopter class and a narrowly measurable migration claim. A's mathematical boundary is sound, but the alleged repository behavior is not directly evidenced and its intervention is comparably established."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C converts a documented product-level ambiguity into a bounded, falsifiable evaluation with identifiable maintainers. B offers a technically credible governance integration, but without an evidenced target its meaningful problem and adopter path are substantially more speculative."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate because external scrutiny found a real, closely matched operational failure rather than only a hypothetical overclaim. Its remaining contribution is modest and context-specific—not a new computability method—but it supports a concrete pilot testing unsupported negative labels, witness retention, scope enforcement, and user discrimination among unresolved states. The extensive prior art limits distinctiveness, yet does not eliminate the value of evaluating a migration for a named CAS-style service.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the preserved records and their reported public-web scrutiny. It does not independently verify the sources, inspect proprietary implementations or logs, identify treatment labels, or infer merit from mechanism counts or nominal prior-art dispositions."}