{"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":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":3,"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 address an established open-access practice and preserve only a local causal-evaluation contribution. B has the sharper incremental design: matched-cluster or phased assignment, direct applicant-abandonment measurement, explicit group-incidence outcomes, and a short bounded pilot. A remains strong but relies more on completed reuse and handling-time outcomes that may not identify abandonment as directly."},{"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 intervention is already demonstrated at collection scale, leaving a useful but comparatively narrow local evaluation. C's core proportional loan practice is also established, but its audit-first threshold, request-level causal coding, stratified randomization, full burden accounting, and longitudinal noninferiority test form a more externally distinctive research package. C carries greater physical-risk and power limitations, but professional vetoes and an audit-only first step prevent those from becoming fatal."},{"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 offers the cleaner and easier experiment, with credible adopters and strong operational precedents, but its underlying intervention is especially close to mature Smithsonian and Rijksmuseum practice. C asks a less-settled causal question about failed physical-loan matches and adds a genuine audit gate before experimentation. Its small sample cannot establish rare-event safety and its implementation is harder, so the advantage is limited rather than decisive."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__art_aesthetics__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest overall research candidate because the preserved incremental claim is more distinctive than another local evaluation of museum-image open access: it first tests whether the alleged wedge exists at the adopter, then conditionally evaluates a bounded clearance lane against operational, burden, equity, and noninferiority outcomes. The evidence supports the general problem and authority path without pretending that risk-tiered lending itself is novel. Its principal weakness is that forty requests cannot estimate rare serious harms, which requires descriptive monitoring, professional vetoes, and immediate stopping rather than a safety claim.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. The sources were not independently reopened, and differences in search coverage, source selection, proposal detail, and evaluator framing may affect apparent evidence quality. No treatment identity or earlier internal outcome was inferred."}