{"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":4,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"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 already closely matches operational trap-and-sort practice. C retains a more distinctive, falsifiable integration of lot-level matching with concurrent risk-tiered multi-authority review, and its initial no-transfer audit is especially bounded and safe."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both generic interventions are established practices whose remaining claims are site-specific comparative-effectiveness questions. A receives the narrow preference because the barrier conflict and ecological consequence have stronger direct field support, whereas B's authorization wedge is only locally supported and is often confounded by capacity, weather, funding, and risk tolerance."},{"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 is less closely preempted by prior art: inventory, matching, provenance, and exception systems exist separately, but the scrutinized record did not find the complete concurrent review composition. B's central conditional-preauthorization lever is already embodied in mature burn-planning and daily go/no-go systems."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","overall_rationale":"C offers the best balance of remaining external distinctiveness, explicit contrastive thresholds, a real falsifier, identifiable authority paths, and a low-risk staged evidence plan. Its narrow stranded-compatible-lot diagnosis remains uncertain, but the proposed retrospective audit directly tests that uncertainty before any seed movement. A and B remain researchable local transfers, yet their principal causal levers are substantially established practice.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. The searches were bounded rather than systematic, relied partly on first-party operational sources, and lacked internal permit, inventory, and outcome datasets; therefore the comparison cannot establish world novelty or rule out unpublished and jurisdiction-specific prior art."}