{"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__A","supported_problem":1,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"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__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both require a local audit because the claimed inefficiency is not directly demonstrated. A retains the more distinctive incremental package—an imaging-only fast path coupled to active-use confirmation and release of stale holds—whereas B's risk tiers, reserves, caps, pilot subsets, and data-return duties closely reproduce several operating geological-collection policies. A's first intervention is also non-destructive, though its problem evidence is weaker."},{"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":"C has substantially stronger evidence for the underlying problem: Earth-model storage pressure and quota-induced write blocking are documented, while A lacks evidence that low-risk requests are actually stranded by coarse review, excessive fees, or inactive holds. Both retain only local empirical increments over mature practice, but C supplies the more decisive audit gate, measurable counterfactual, reversible pilot, and credible operator path."},{"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":"The central intervention in each proposal is established practice, but C's underlying storage-and-quota problem is externally supported and its repository-specific claim is tightly falsifiable against adding hot capacity. B lacks evidence that coarse blanket rules routinely block feasible high-value geological microsampling, and its proposed controls are already closely instantiated by multiple repositories."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate despite low broad novelty. Its problem is meaningfully supported, adopters and authorities are identifiable, and the remaining local claim can be tested through a bounded read-only audit followed only conditionally by a copy-preserving pilot with explicit throughput, cost, recall, integrity, provenance, duplication, equity, and rollback criteria. A is somewhat more compositionally distinctive but rests on a poorly evidenced access wedge; B addresses an important preservation-access tradeoff but is closest to established repository practice and likewise lacks direct evidence for its exact diagnosis.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the preserved proposals and supplied external-scrutiny records. Public policies and architecture descriptions establish feasibility and prior art but generally omit request logs, denial reasons, utilization records, quota events, realized outcomes, compliance performance, and full costs; therefore the local causal claims remain unresolved, and no inference about treatment identity or world novelty was made."}