{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__A","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__C","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":2,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A retains somewhat more domain-specific distinctiveness, but its defining forced-binary platform problem is not externally demonstrated. B has stronger direct evidence from a philosophy-capable product, identifiable technical adopters, standardized implementation precedents, and a tightly measurable pilot. Its established-practice overlap limits novelty but makes the incremental philosophy-workflow claim more credible and researchable."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both depend on an unverified total-Boolean platform premise and draw heavily on adjacent automated-reasoning practice. A is preferable because it identifies a real argument-platform operator, defines coverage and user-comprehension outcomes, and offers a more concrete authorized shadow test. C lacks an identified platform or authorizer and must first verify that its target problem exists."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B has materially stronger problem, adopter, feasibility, and pilot evidence. C's integrated workflow may be marginally more distinctive, but its central deployment premise and authority path are unsupported, making its proposed audit premature. B's remaining claim is narrower and less novel, yet it is genuinely falsifiable and can be tested now by identifiable practitioners."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny. Its core mechanisms are established rather than novel, but the evidence supports a meaningful philosophy-facing ambiguity, real prospective adopters, technical feasibility, a specific contrastive claim, decisive falsifiers, and a bounded reversible comparison. A is a plausible second choice with greater contextual distinctiveness but a weaker demonstrated problem. C has a coherent test but first needs evidence that a target platform and accountable authorizer exist.","blinding_limitations":"The records differ in search findings, source characterization, pilot size, and specificity of adopter evidence, so comparisons cannot isolate proposal quality from scrutiny quality. Scores use a five-point ordinal scale. No treatment identity was inferred, and mechanism counts or nominal prior-art dispositions were not treated as ranking rules."}