{"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":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"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—standing risk-tiered preauthorization versus case-by-case or advisory-only tuning—whereas A's state-contingent selector substantially overlaps reference governors, invariant-set control, and backup-controller safety filters on both problem and lever. A has stronger support that constraint binding can impair performance, but its remaining contribution is mainly a plant-specific assurance study. C's central approval-queue premise is unverified, so the preference is only moderate and depends on the proposed retrospective audit establishing a material procedural bottleneck."},{"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 supported availability and nuisance-action problem with a distinct test at the certified safety-action boundary: fewer adjudicated false trips with zero incremental missed hazards and unchanged hard limits. Its closest evidence is partly alarm-domain rather than interlock-domain, leaving meaningful external distinctiveness. C is also distinctive and highly falsifiable, but its defining premise—that procedural approval delay materially strands safe retuning—was not directly supported and may disappear once substantive hazard-analysis time is separated from queue delay."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__A","right_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both support bounded non-actuating studies and credible safety-authority paths. A has higher-quality direct technical evidence, but public prior art closely matches its problem and causal lever, including state-dependent admissible sets, invariant-set selectors, and backup-controller safety filters. B's contextual permission at an interlock boundary is less directly anticipated by the retained alarm-management and fixed-voting analogues, while its falsifier and one-unit replay remain concrete. B's weaker interlock-specific problem evidence and rare-event data requirements prevent high confidence."}],"overall_top_choice":"deadweight_loss_reduction__systems_cybernetics__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best balance of meaningful external support, residual distinctiveness, and a decision-relevant bounded test. The proposed non-actuating replay can directly compare false-trip reduction against hazardous-state detection, sensor independence, detection margin, and operator burden without modifying certified protection. Its prior art is close but not fully coincident at the automatic safety-permission boundary. A is especially researchable but is more substantially anticipated technically, while C has a strong governance contrast yet first requires evidence that its asserted approval bottleneck exists.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. The records differ in how directly their sources address the proposed action: A has strong control-architecture sources, B relies partly on adjacent alarm evidence, and C lacks plant-level approval logs. No treatment identity, internal outcome, proprietary deployment evidence, patent landscape, or site-specific safety record was available."}