{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__A","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":3,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__C","supported_problem":1,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":3,"researchability":2,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":"No real platform making the hypothesized universal Boolean guarantee, or an authorized adopter for the audit, was identified."}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both largely transfer established fragment-scoping and abstention practices, but B has stronger direct problem and adoption evidence: a philosophy-capable product visibly conflates invalidity with resource exhaustion, and identifiable operators control the relevant interface. A identifies a platform operator but does not show that its platform performs the alleged universal entailment adjudication, so its proposed test first depends on verifying that the baseline 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 connects the general computability hazard to a concrete philosophy-capable product, supported implementers, a measurable pilot, and high-quality standards evidence. C retains a falsifiable audit design but lacks evidence of the asserted platform behavior and lacks an identified authorizer, making it substantially less research-ready despite a superficially broader integrated workflow."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__A","right_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A and C both depend on an unverified Boolean-platform premise, but A identifies a maintained argument-platform operator and specifies a larger, stratified shadow test with concrete accuracy, coverage, and comprehension outcomes. C has neither a demonstrated target platform nor an identified authority path, so its first evidence step cannot yet be authorized or grounded in an observed workflow."}],"overall_top_choice":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__B","overall_rationale":"B is the best candidate after scrutiny because it has the strongest externally supported problem instance, credible operators, technically feasible implementation, a reversible and sharply falsifiable pilot, and the best evidence base. Its main weakness is low mechanism novelty: explicit unknown states and enforceable logical fragments are established automated-reasoning practice. Nevertheless, the remaining philosophy-specific incremental claim is better grounded and more immediately testable than the conditional platform premises underlying A and C.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the preserved proposals and supplied external-evaluation records. Search completeness, source interpretation, private platform behavior, adoption willingness, and world novelty could not be independently verified; treatment identity and earlier outcomes were not inferred."}