{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics","judge_id":"J3","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"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":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both target an established open-access practice and retain only a local causal-evaluation contribution. B has the sharper incremental test: matched-cluster or phased assignment, direct measurement of applicant abandonment, explicit controls for discovery and image quality, and preregistered distributional thresholds. A has somewhat stronger and broader source quality, but its matched-image design is less clearly causal."},{"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 addresses a well-supported and readily testable problem, but its intervention is closely reproduced by several collection-scale programs. C also overlaps established practice, yet its audit-first threshold, request-level causal coding, randomized evaluation, full-burden accounting, and longitudinal noninferiority claim form a more distinctive research package. C's physical-risk and sample-size limitations reduce confidence but are not fatal because professional vetoes precede enrollment."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__B","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"B is easier to implement and offers a clean causal estimate, but the underlying open-access lever is already demonstrated at large institutions. C addresses a less-settled empirical question and makes the initial evidence step contingent on finding a material wedge before exposing objects to trial risk. Its incremental evaluation is therefore more externally distinctive, although rare-harm inference from at most forty requests and higher operational complexity make the advantage narrow."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate because it does not assume the local problem: a preregistered records audit can first falsify the wedge, after which a capped randomized comparison tests a specific incremental claim absent from the retained prior art. Its intervention is not novel, and serious physical or cultural harms cannot be statistically cleared by the proposed sample, but preserved specialist vetoes, immediate stopping rules, and an audit-only first authorization keep the next evidence step bounded. B is the closest alternative because it is more feasible and experimentally cleaner, but it contributes mainly a local evaluation of an already mature open-access model.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved records and does not infer treatment identity. The searches are bounded, several sources are first-party or mutable, and the judge did not independently verify source contents, unpublished studies, institutional logs, or jurisdiction-specific authority. Scores use a 1–5 comparative scale."}