{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"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":3,"researchability":3,"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}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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":"Both address supported but incompletely quantified problems and both build on established practice. C retains the more distinctive incremental package: an audit threshold followed by randomized testing, incidence accounting, noninferiority follow-up, and rollback. Its physical-object risks and limited sample weaken feasibility and safety inference, but the audit-first design keeps the initial step bounded."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"The proposals are extremely close and their core open-reuse lever is established. B has a slightly sharper remaining experiment because it explicitly targets applicant abandonment, permits matched-cluster or phased assignment, and proposes surveying interrupted applicants, whereas A's matched-image comparison leaves the key abandonment mechanism somewhat less directly observed. The difference is modest."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B offers the safer and more readily powered study, but its intervention and most implementation elements closely reproduce mature open-access programs. C's core proportional-loan practice is also established, yet its prerequisite causal audit and randomized, full-incidence evaluation form a more externally distinctive research contribution. C remains worthwhile only with professional vetoes, immediate stopping rules, and recognition that forty requests cannot establish rare-event safety."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest overall candidate because scrutiny leaves a clearer incremental research contribution than merely implementing an established practice: first establish whether disproportionate requirements actually cause qualified failed matches, then test a bounded low-risk lane causally. Its advantage is not the number or sophistication of mechanisms but the contrastive, falsifiable audit-to-trial sequence. Its margin over B is limited by physical-harm exposure, complex authority requirements, low likely power, and the inability of a small trial to validate rare-event safety.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. No treatment identities or earlier outcomes were inferred. The searches were bounded, institution-specific administrative data were unavailable, and the near-duplicate subject matter and study designs of A and B make their directional comparison especially uncertain."}