{"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__C","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__C","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C retains a clearer incremental governance claim—whether standing, bounded preauthorization improves outcomes beyond case-by-case or advisory-only tuning—whereas A's core state-contingent selector closely matches established reference-governor and safety-filter architectures. A has stronger evidence that the generic constraint problem exists, but its remaining contribution is predominantly a plant-specific deployment study; C's unverified approval bottleneck prevents high confidence."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__C","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B combines a better-supported general problem with a distinct test at the certified safety-action boundary and a safe non-actuating first step. C is technically feasible and contrastive, but its central claim that procedural approval delay is a material bottleneck lacks direct evidence and must first survive a records audit."},{"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":"Both are bounded and falsifiable, but A substantially collides with reference governors, invariant-set switching, and backup-controller safety filters addressing the same problem with the same lever. B's move from contextual alarm handling and fixed voting toward state-conditioned automatic permission remains more externally distinctive, while its replay study preserves certified protection."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","overall_rationale":"B is the best-balanced research candidate: the problem has meaningful external support, the adopter and authority path are credible, the remaining claim is explicitly contrastive, and a one-unit non-actuating replay supplies a bounded falsification step without altering certified logic. Its main weakness is that evidence for nuisance alarms is stronger than evidence for benign-transient interlock trips, and rare hazardous events may make the comparison underpowered. Even so, it retains more distinctiveness than A and a better-supported initial problem than C.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the preserved records and bounded public-web scrutiny supplied here. It cannot verify source completeness, proprietary implementations, plant logs, local certification constraints, or world novelty, and it does not infer treatment identity from proposal form or mechanism content."}