{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences","judge_id":"J3","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"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":2,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has substantially better external support for the underlying storage constraint and a highly bounded, reversible audit-and-pilot path with measurable throughput, cost, recall, integrity, and equity outcomes. Its causal lever is established practice, but the repository-specific counterfactual remains worthwhile. A retains a somewhat more distinctive incremental package, yet no evidence currently shows that avoidable review or stale holds actually strand usable core-access capacity."},{"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 denial or workflow audit before their diagnosed problem is credible. A leaves a clearer incremental contrast—an imaging-only fast path plus active-hold confirmation—and tests it without destructive sampling. B's principal permission, reserve, cap, pilot-subset, documentation, and data-return mechanisms closely reproduce multiple operating policies, while its intervention carries irreversible depletion risk."},{"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 combines a supported meaningful problem with an explicit expansion counterfactual, precise audit gates, reversible implementation, and strong operational precedents. B lacks direct evidence that coarse rules are blocking feasible geological microsampling, and very close repositories already implement nearly the entire proposed causal lever."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate despite limited broad novelty. The evidence establishes storage pressure, quota write-blocking, identifiable institutional authorities, and feasible hierarchical storage operations. Its remaining claim is explicitly contrastive and readily falsifiable against added hot capacity through a read-only audit followed conditionally by a copy-preserving pilot. A is more compositionally distinctive but rests on an unverified access wedge; B combines similarly weak problem evidence with especially close prior practice and irreversible intervention risk.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved records and public-web scrutiny summaries. Numerical scores use a five-point ordinal scale. Public sources do not expose the repository-specific logs needed to verify any proposal's decisive local causal claim, and the records differ somewhat in source mix and problem-evidence availability."}