{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","supported_problem":1,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"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 stronger external support for the underlying storage wedge and a sharper repository-specific audit-and-pilot claim. Although hierarchical tiering is established, its blocked-run, lifecycle-cost, latency, integrity, duplication, and access thresholds define a consequential residual test. B's central permission design is already closely instantiated by several geological repositories, while the alleged blanket-rule 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":"C combines a supported meaningful problem, credible operators, explicit comparison with hot-capacity expansion, and a bounded reversible test. A retains a distinguishable fast-path-and-hold-expiry experiment, but scrutiny did not substantiate its defining inefficiency and found that repositories already differentiate access risks, justify many fees by costs, and impose expiring controls."},{"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":"The evidence exposes offsetting weaknesses. B has somewhat better support for access reluctance and nonapproval, but its specimen-specific tiers, caps, reserves, pilot subsets, and return duties closely match established practice. A's combined imaging fast path and active-hold confirmation is somewhat more distinctive, but its claimed stranded-capacity problem fails external support. Neither record justifies a confident directional choice."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny. Its general problem is externally supported, its adopter and authority path is concrete, and its remaining local claim is explicitly contrastive, falsifiable, bounded, reversible, and measurable against a credible expansion alternative. Mature prior art limits broad novelty, but the proposed audit can cheaply determine whether the residual causal and economic claim holds without creating a safety or preservation stop.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. Treatment identities, earlier internal outcomes, repository materials, and nonpublic operational data were unavailable; all residual claims therefore remain local empirical hypotheses rather than established novelty or impact."}