{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__B","preference":"TIE","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"Both address the same partly supported reuse friction with an intervention already established at major museums. Their remaining contributions are closely comparable bounded causal evaluations; B has somewhat clearer randomization and abandonment measurement, while A has a longer matched pilot and especially direct historical evidence, leaving no justified directional advantage."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"A's fee-free segmented reuse path closely reproduces mature collection-scale programs, so only its local evaluation design remains distinctive. C's proportional loan practices are also established, but its audit-first threshold, request-level randomization, full-incidence accounting, and longitudinal noninferiority test form a more distinctive research package around an unresolved sector problem."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__B","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B offers a credible controlled evaluation, but its intervention and much of its monitoring logic closely match longstanding open-access programs. C preserves professional vetoes while testing a less well-evaluated causal question through a gated audit and randomized trial, giving it greater incremental research value despite feasibility and statistical-power limitations."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest candidate because scrutiny found extensive precedent for its operational lever but not for its complete audit-first causal evaluation. It has a genuine early falsifier, a bounded records-based first step, identifiable museum authority, and explicit safety vetoes. Its advantage is moderate rather than decisive: the underlying practice is established, forty requests may be underpowered, and rare physical or cultural harms cannot be validated statistically. A and B remain worthwhile local implementation studies but are less externally distinctive because their core intervention is already deployed at scale.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved records and external-evaluation summaries. It cannot verify source completeness, mutable first-party pages, unpublished institutional evaluations, local willingness, or whether the proposed samples would have adequate power; treatment identity and earlier outcomes were not inferred."}