{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__B","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__C","supported_problem":4,"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__mathematics__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both are incremental governance applications of established computability and abstention practices, but A has a better-evidenced real substrate in formal-conjecture repositories and a clear replay design. B lacks evidence of any named service making the universal binary promise or coercing timeout to NO, leaving its target problem explicitly indeterminate."},{"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 product evidence that Maple's integer-equation interface conflates nonexistence with inability to find a solution, whereas A's alleged Boolean-closure repository remains hypothetical. C therefore offers a more concrete adopter, a sharper contrastive migration claim, and a bounded pilot tied to an observed failure mode."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"The theoretical foundations and proposed abstention patterns are strong in both, but C uniquely connects them to a documented product-level state collapse and identifiable CAS maintainers. B's closest standards already implement its main result semantics, while no noncompliant target was found."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__mathematics__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate because scrutiny found a concrete, externally documented operational problem, an identifiable authority path, and a local falsifiable intervention: separate unresolved computation from mathematical nonexistence while preserving verified witnesses and Boolean decisions only within an enforced fragment. Its underlying method is established practice, so the worthwhile contribution is a product-specific implementation and usability evaluation rather than a novel computability result. A ranks second; B ranks third because its central deployment diagnosis remains unevidenced.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment is limited to the supplied preserved records and bounded public-web evaluations. The records use different target domains and pilot sizes, and none reports executed pilot results, proprietary requirements, production logs, adopter commitment, or world-novelty evidence. Scores use a five-point ordinal scale, where higher is stronger."}