{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__C","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"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's asserted approval bottleneck is not yet externally established, but that uncertainty is directly resolvable through a bounded log audit, and a distinctive governance contrast remains beyond established adaptive-tuning products. A has better evidence for constraint-related performance loss, yet its proposed state-contingent selector is substantially anticipated by reference governors, invariant-set methods, and backup-controller safety filters; the surviving contribution is mainly a site-specific assurance study."},{"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":"Both retain meaningful incremental claims and safe non-actuating first steps, but B has stronger external support for nuisance or spurious protective actions, clearer measurable event labels, and a consequential contrast at the certified safety-action boundary. C depends first on discovering that an undocumented uniform approval queue is both real and materially causal."},{"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 closely collided at both problem and causal-lever levels by mature reference-governor and invariant-set control work. B also has adjacent state-based alarm and voting prior art, but its explicit claim about state-conditioned permission at the interlock boundary remains more distinct, falsifiable through blinded replay, and supported by an established availability-versus-spurious-trip problem."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best balance after scrutiny: a meaningful externally supported problem, a genuinely contrastive claim not reduced to ordinary alarm suppression or fixed voting, a strict falsifier covering missed hazardous trips and sensor dependence, and a bounded non-actuating replay under an identifiable functional-safety authority. Its major limitations—rare-event coverage, correlated evidence, and certification barriers—are explicit research gates rather than fatal defects.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the three supplied preserved records and their bounded public-web evaluations. Integer scores use a 1–5 ordinal scale. No treatment identity, repository material, prior experiment outcome, or nominal disposition ladder was used."}