{"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":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both retain falsifiable modal-control increments despite adjacent eigenvalue, DMD, and ecological-intervention prior art. B is the stronger candidate because the hidden-resilience problem has direct coral-specific support and its projection-matched experiment isolates modal leverage with fewer layers than A's large two-stage identification and controller trial. A is unusually explicit and rigorous, but its facility capacity, dimensionality, and replication requirements create greater feasibility risk, while lake MAR models, process models, and combined restoration practices crowd its external distinction."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"A has stronger numerical success criteria and active-controller comparisons, but C addresses a better-supported immediate harm, has standardized sensing and a clearer investigator-to-manager path, and offers a smaller staged test. C's novelty is limited by operational coupled forecasting, ecological dynamical-eigenvalue warnings, and DMD-with-control work, yet the held-out hypoxia comparison plus intervention-projection test remains distinct. On balance, C's practical evidence step and clearer ecological endpoint outweigh A's more ambitious but capacity-sensitive design."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has stronger hazard evidence, instrumentation support, and a more immediate adopter path. B nevertheless retains the more externally distinctive research increment: a coral-specific, equal-magnitude projection contrast testing whether an inferred community mode can be selectively damped and whether gain reduction mediates recovery. Its closest sources separately establish hidden coral decline, factorial nutrient-herbivory effects, DMD warning, and control decomposition, but do not closely reproduce that causal experiment. The controlled-facility and permit path makes the increment researchable despite ecological and statistical uncertainty."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best combination of a meaningful externally supported problem and a genuinely contrastive experiment. Its decisive value is not the use of modes itself, which has substantial prior art, but the randomized comparison of a mode-aligned joint intervention against matched single-variable and low-projection interventions, followed by a mediation test linking gain reduction to recovery. It has real falsifiers, bounded aquarium execution, identifiable facilities and authorities, and no fatal safety issue. C is the strongest practical alternative but is closer to existing ecological warning and operational forecasting work; A is highly testable but substantially more complex and capacity-dependent.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved records and external-evaluation summaries. Source claims were not independently reopened, and unequal proposal specificity may affect apparent testability and feasibility. No treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}