{"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":1,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"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__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 repository-level audit because their distinctive access losses were not externally demonstrated. A retains the more contrastive increment—an audit-qualified imaging fast path combined with active-use confirmation—and its first intervention is non-destructive. B's specimen-specific risk tiers, reserves, caps, pilot subsets, and return duties closely reproduce established geological-collection policies, leaving mainly a local evaluation claim."},{"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":"A is somewhat more externally distinctive, but its central inefficiency failed the support gate: existing archives already differentiate access types, justify many charges as cost recovery, and use expiring or compliance-conditioned controls. C's tiering lever is established, yet storage pressure, quota blocking, implementability, authorizers, and the bounded audit-to-pilot comparison are better supported. Its precise local causal and cost claim therefore offers the stronger worthwhile research candidate."},{"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":"Both general interventions are established practices, but C has substantially stronger evidence for the underlying problem and a sharply bounded, reversible test against an explicit hot-capacity-expansion rival. B lacks evidence that coarse rules, rather than specimen-specific review and staffing limits, are actually blocking feasible geological microsampling, while its main policy components already appear in several close analogues."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__earth_sciences__C","overall_rationale":"C is the best overall candidate despite low broad novelty. External evidence supports the storage-pressure and quota mechanism, identifies plausible authorities, and shows that a read-only audit followed conditionally by a copy-preserving pilot is feasible. The remaining claim is explicit and falsifiable through byte eligibility, solely quota-blocked runs, admitted runs, wait time, lifecycle cost, recall, integrity, duplication, and distributional thresholds. A is more compositionally distinctive but rests on an unverified inefficiency; B combines an incompletely supported diagnosis with the closest prior-art collision.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. Public sources do not expose the repository-specific logs needed to verify any proposal's remaining local causal claim, and the review cannot establish world novelty, realized impact, or representative performance across institutions."}