{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__C","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A is highly researchable, but reference governors, invariant-set switching, safety filters, and backup controllers closely cover both its problem and causal lever; its remaining claim is chiefly a plant-specific assurance study. B retains a sharper externally contrastive claim at the certified safety-action boundary, while supporting a safe, non-actuating first test."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has a distinct governance hypothesis, but scrutiny found no direct evidence that uniform procedural approval is a material tuning bottleneck, and commercial adaptive-tuning systems already implement much of its technical lever. A also faces close prior art, yet its underlying constraint-performance problem is better supported and its offline comparison against retuning or anti-windup is unusually well bounded."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B has stronger external support for nuisance or spurious protective actions, a clearer distinction from alarm management and fixed voting architectures, and a concrete falsifier requiring no additional missed hazardous-trip predictions. C remains worthwhile as a diagnostic audit, but its asserted approval wedge is presently unverified and its implementation components overlap closely with existing adaptive-tuning products."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best combination of a meaningful supported problem, a still-distinct contrastive claim, identifiable safety authority, and a bounded non-actuating replay. Its principal feasibility risks—correlated evidence, rare-event scarcity, and certification constraints—are explicit and testable before any live modification. A is the strongest runner-up but is more directly anticipated by established constrained-control architectures; C's central procedural bottleneck first needs plant-level confirmation.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment is based only on the supplied preserved records and bounded public-web scrutiny. The three searches used different source mixes, and no plant logs, certification dossiers, proprietary deployments, paid standards, patents, or live outcome data were available. Numerical ratings use a 1–5 ordinal scale and should not be read as precise measurements."}