{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__A","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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":"A has the more strongly established ecological problem and direct field evidence, but its seasonal selective-passage lever is exceptionally close to demonstrated trap-and-sort practice and lacks a named adopter. B's causal wedge is less well supported and its conditional authorization model is also established, yet it offers a cheaper records-first falsification step and clearer authority roles. These offsetting strengths do not justify a directional choice."},{"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":"C retains a clearer externally distinct increment: integrating lot-level matching with concurrent, risk-tiered multi-authority review, beyond existing inventory, marketplace, and compatibility tools. Its no-transfer audit and shadow review can cheaply falsify both the stranded-surplus diagnosis and the workflow effect. A addresses a better-established problem, but very close operational prior art confines it largely to another site-specific effectiveness study."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__B","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"Both begin with bounded retrospective evidence steps and preserve substantive safeguards, but B's core authorization lever already closely matches federal burn-plan, daily go/no-go, air-district, and programmatic-agreement practices. C's components have adjacent precedents, while the proposed integrated review workflow and its incremental timing, agreement, safety, and equity thresholds remain less directly preempted."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate because scrutiny found adjacent component-level prior art rather than a near-complete operational analogue, leaving an explicit and falsifiable integration claim. Its initial audit requires no seed movement, directly tests whether recoverable surplus exists, and gates a controlled shadow comparison with credible custodial, regulatory, land-management, and rights-holder authority paths. The underlying problem evidence is incomplete, but that uncertainty is precisely addressed by the bounded first step without creating a fatal biological or governance risk.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the three supplied records and did not independently inspect sources or infer treatment identity. Integer ratings use a 1–5 scale, where 5 is strongest. Public-web searches may omit internal, unpublished, non-indexed, Indigenous, or jurisdiction-specific practices, and none of the records establishes world novelty."}