{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__A","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A has stronger direct problem evidence, but seasonal selective fish passage is closely matched by operational trap-and-sort practice. C's narrower problem remains unquantified, yet its no-transfer audit directly tests that uncertainty, and the integrated increment—lot-level matching plus concurrent multi-authority review—remains more distinct from the adjacent systems found."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__B","preference":"TIE","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both propose site-specific comparative evaluations of mechanisms already in substantial use. A offers stronger evidence that the ecological conflict exists but lacks a named adopter or site; B has clearer authority pathways and a useful records audit, but its authorization-wedge diagnosis is weaker and often rivaled by capacity or weather constraints. The evidence does not support a robust directional choice."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C retains a more contrastive and composition-level claim than B's transfer of an established advance-plan and condition-triggered authorization model. Its staged audit and shadow review can cheaply falsify both the stranded-surplus diagnosis and the claimed timing benefit before seed movement, while preserving substantive biological and governance gates."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate because public evidence leaves a specific unresolved conjunction—viable compatible lots stranded by coordination and approval friction—and the proposed audit can test it without ecological exposure. If that gate passes, the shadow review evaluates an externally distinguishable integration against inventory or matching tools alone, with explicit timing, safety-disagreement, authority, and equity falsifiers. Its problem evidence is less mature than A's, but that uncertainty is precisely bounded and inexpensive to resolve.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. The searches were bounded public-web reviews, not systematic reviews; unpublished operating procedures, internal datasets, Indigenous knowledge not publicly indexed, and jurisdiction-specific practices could materially change distinctiveness or feasibility."}