{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"Both diagnose an unverified repository-specific inefficiency and offer bounded audits. B's central permission package is already closely instantiated across several geological repositories, leaving mainly an evaluation increment. A retains a somewhat more contrastive imaging-fast-path and active-hold-expiry experiment, although evidence for idle capacity, stale holds, or excessive fees is weak; the narrow distinctiveness advantage is therefore tentative."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C has materially stronger external support for the underlying problem: storage pressure can curtail Earth-model output and hard quotas can prevent writes. Its read-only audit, explicit causal gate, expansion counterfactual, quantitative outcomes, and reversible pilot provide a sharper test than B's repository-specific coarse-denial hypothesis, which remains indeterminate and targets an established permission regime."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A's residual intervention is somewhat more compositionally distinctive, but its defining loss—eligible requests stranded by uniform review, excessive fees, or inactive holds—was not externally demonstrated and is partly challenged by already differentiated policies. C combines a supported meaningful problem with a precise falsifier, bounded evidence step, credible operators, measurable safeguards, and a direct alternative-investment comparison."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest worthwhile research candidate after scrutiny. Hierarchical storage is established rather than novel, but the remaining local causal claim is unusually explicit and decisively testable: the audit must identify eligible capacity and quota-blocked runs, demonstrate an admission counterfactual, and beat hot-capacity expansion on full cost before any reversible pilot proceeds. Its stronger problem evidence, named authority path, quantitative falsifiers, and copy-preserving rollback outweigh its limited general novelty. A ranks next on residual distinctiveness but lacks evidence for its binding wedge; B has a plausible audit question but the closest prior art reproduces most of its proposed redesign.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. Public-policy and architecture sources establish practices and plausibility but do not expose the private request logs, denial reasons, quota events, utilization records, costs, compliance outcomes, or comparative impacts needed to validate any local causal claim. Scores use a 1–5 ordinal scale."}