{"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":4,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"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},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"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":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both generic interventions substantially collide with established practice, but A has the more strongly demonstrated underlying problem and more direct field-performance evidence for the ecological tradeoff. B offers an especially safe retrospective first step and clearer authority roles, yet its proposed authorization wedge is only locally supported and is frequently rivaled by capacity, weather, funding, and risk-tolerance explanations."},{"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 addresses a well-supported problem and is highly testable, but seasonally operated selective passage at invasive-control barriers closely reproduces both its problem and causal lever. C also has close component-level analogues, yet the integrated claim concerning compatible-lot matching plus concurrent risk-tiered multi-authority review remains materially more distinct and can first be tested without transferring seed."},{"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":"B's central preauthorization and condition-responsive go/no-go design is already embodied in authoritative prescribed-fire procedures, leaving mainly a local comparative-effectiveness study. C's exact recoverable-surplus diagnosis is less well established, but that uncertainty is addressed by a sharply bounded no-transfer audit, and its integrated workflow remains more externally distinctive than the established burn-authorization package."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__biology_ecology__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny because adjacent systems validate its individual operational components without clearly establishing the full proposed integration. Its contrastive claim has explicit quantitative falsifiers, its first evidence step is a small no-transfer audit, and a subsequent shadow review preserves substantive biological and governance gates. The underlying stranded-compatible-lot prevalence remains uncertain, but that is precisely a bounded and worthwhile empirical question rather than an unresolved deployment hazard.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the preserved proposals and supplied external-evaluation records. The searches were bounded public-web reviews rather than systematic reviews, and the records differ in source type, jurisdictional coverage, and access to operational data; unpublished or internal practices could reduce the apparent distinctiveness of any proposal."}