{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":3,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"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":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both retain distinctive randomized modal-control increments beyond adjacent transition-mode and ecological-intervention work. A is the stronger candidate because it specifies quantitative model gates, powered confirmatory arms, disturbance-matched active rivals, simultaneous efficacy requirements, and operational stopping rules. B addresses a compelling hidden-resilience problem, but its pilot scale, treatment definition, and mediation criterion are less bounded, while compositional dynamics and rare-species control of dominant modes create greater interpretive risk."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A preserves a clearer incremental claim: randomized control-to-mode identification followed by an independently randomized comparison against coordinate-wise and nonlinear nonmodal policies. C faces closer mechanism-level and practice-level competition from dynamical-eigenvalue warnings, DMD with control, warning-triggered nutrient cessation, and an operational coupled bloom–oxygen forecasting platform. A also has more explicit feasibility, power, and falsification gates."},{"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":"B's projection-matched nutrient-by-grazer experiment and gain-mediated recovery claim remain more externally distinctive than C's combination. C is highly testable and addresses a well-supported hazard, but close multivariate dynamical-eigenvalue research and operational coupled forecasting narrow its increment and undermine its simple-threshold baseline. B has greater novelty value despite harder ecological estimation and permitting constraints."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","overall_rationale":"A offers the best balance of meaningful external need, contrast from the closest prior art, decisive falsification, and a bounded adopter-authorized evidence path. Its novelty is compositional rather than foundational, but the randomized intervention map, strict model gates, disturbance-matched rivals, quantitative success criteria, and conditional two-stage design make the remaining claim unusually discriminating. No fatal safety or feasibility issue is evident for approved enclosed mesocosm work.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved records and bounded external evaluations. Source searches were not systematic, some implementation details and adopter commitments remain unverified, and no treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}