{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C has the stronger externally supported causal setting and a sharper repository-specific contrast against hot-capacity expansion, with quantitative audit gates, operational outcomes, lifecycle costs, access-incidence safeguards, and rollback. Its storage-tiering lever is established, but the remaining comparative claim is more consequential and better isolated than B's increment, whose principal permission, reserve, cap, pilot, and data-return mechanisms closely match several existing geological policies and whose alleged coarse-denial problem remains unverified."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"Both retain bounded local empirical claims despite close practice, but C starts from substantially better evidence that storage pressure and quota mechanics can impede modeling and specifies a direct expansion counterfactual. A's distinctive premise—avoidable delays or idle reservations under undifferentiated access rules—was not externally demonstrated, while existing repositories already differentiate access, justify many charges by cost, and impose time limits. C therefore offers the stronger worthwhile research opportunity even though neither proposes a broadly novel mechanism."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","preference":"TIE","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B has somewhat better evidence for a meaningful access tension, but its proposed intervention is exceptionally close to multiple operating specimen-specific sampling regimes. A preserves a more distinctive fast-path-plus-active-hold-confirmation experiment and is initially non-destructive, yet its diagnosed inefficiency failed external support. These opposing advantages do not justify a directional choice before either repository-level audit establishes the local wedge."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest candidate because its general problem, adopter path, implementation feasibility, and evidence base are all well supported, while its remaining local claim is explicit, quantitatively falsifiable, reversible, and compared with a credible alternative. The mature prior art limits novelty to the audit-qualified repository outcome rather than the tiering mechanism itself, but that residual question is still more supported and decision-relevant than the narrower, less substantiated increments retained by A and B.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the three supplied preserved records and their public-web scrutiny. The records differ in search findings and proposal specificity, and none supplies private repository logs needed to verify its decisive local causal premise. Integer ratings use a 1–5 scale, with higher values indicating stronger performance."}