{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has the strongest immediate hazard, adopter, instrumentation, and bounded-study evidence, but its warning component lies close to operational coupled forecasting, ecological dynamical-eigenvalue warnings, and DMD with controls. B retains a sharper incremental experiment: projection-matched randomized treatments, active nonmodal controls, and a mediation test linking gain reduction to recovery. Its coral mesocosm is harder to execute, but controlled infrastructure and factorial ecological precedents make it sufficiently researchable, and the remaining claim is more externally distinctive."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both retain falsifiable increments over substantial adjacent art. A specifies unusually strong validation and comparative-control gates, but its two-stage design requires many independent units, multiple organism manipulations, confirmed native-stock logistics, and substantial Stage B capacity; the evidence explicitly leaves those prerequisites unverified. C can begin with existing data and advance to a smaller replicated nutrient-pulse study, addresses a well-documented hypoxia hazard, and has a clearer investigator-to-waterbody-manager adoption path. That researchability advantage outweighs A's somewhat greater methodological distinctiveness."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"The proposals share close mode-based control antecedents and both articulate real falsifiers and active comparators. B offers the cleaner scientific contrast: an aligned joint perturbation versus matched single-variable and equal-magnitude low-projection treatments, followed by an explicit recovery-mediation test. A is more quantitatively specified, but its extensive identification stage, minimum confirmatory sample, three intervention families, and unverified facility capacity create a larger feasibility burden. B therefore preserves similar distinctiveness with a more credible bounded pilot."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","overall_rationale":"B is the best overall research candidate because scrutiny supports the hidden-resilience problem while leaving a genuinely contrastive empirical question: whether a reproducible coral-community mode adds predictive value and whether a projection-aligned nutrient-by-grazer perturbation selectively reduces its gain and improves recovery. Close prior art establishes the component methods but does not answer that randomized, disturbance-matched causal comparison. The study remains conditional on stability and residual gates, controlled-facility approval, and welfare limits, with no unresolved fatal issue. C is more immediately feasible and better supported operationally, but is less distinctive; A is comparably distinctive but materially more burdensome and capacity-sensitive.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment is limited to the preserved records and their separate bounded eight-source searches. Source coverage, terminology, publication dates, and comparator depth differ across proposals; first-party operational claims were not independently audited, some methodological evidence is preprint or model-based, and no record establishes world novelty, committed adoption, statistical power from pilot data, or final site-specific approvals. Scores use a five-point ordinal scale and do not infer treatment identity."}