{"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":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__C","supported_problem":1,"external_distinctiveness":2,"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":"MODERATE","rationale":"A is somewhat more externally distinctive because its guarantee-labelled philosophy router remains adjacent to, rather than fully instantiated by, prior art. B is nevertheless the stronger research candidate: it has the best-supported concrete problem signal, identifiable technical adopters, standardized implementation precedents, and a tightly measurable pilot. Its established-practice overlap limits novelty but also makes the remaining philosophy-specific effect claim credible and low risk."},{"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 retain a contrastive and falsifiable domain-transfer claim despite close automated-reasoning precedents. A has the stronger path to research because it identifies an actual argument-platform operator and makes coverage and user interpretation explicit outcomes. C first requires finding a real platform that makes the alleged universal Boolean commitment, so its supported problem and authority path are materially weaker."},{"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 direct product evidence for a philosophy-capable interface that conflates invalidity with resource exhaustion, identifiable practitioner adopters, supported implementation components, and a preregisterable comparison. C offers a somewhat more distinctive integrated governance package, but its defining platform behavior and authorizer were not externally identified; that prerequisite substantially reduces its present research value."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","overall_rationale":"B is the most worthwhile candidate after scrutiny. It is not the most novel technically—the core levers are established automated-reasoning practice—but it has the strongest combination of concrete problem evidence, adopter plausibility, implementation feasibility, falsifiability, and bounded evaluation. Its 60-pair non-public pilot can determine whether the philosophy-specific increment actually reduces timeout-to-negative errors and improves reproducibility without rejecting known-valid proofs. A ranks second because it is similarly testable and somewhat more distinctive but rests on a less-demonstrated baseline. C ranks third because both its target platform and authorizer remain unidentified.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. The records differ in query framing, cited product examples, pilot size, and gate interpretation, so comparisons may reflect search yield and documentation availability as well as true differences among the proposals. No treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}