{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology","judge_id":"J3","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"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":4,"external_distinctiveness":5,"testability":4,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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 distinction from adjacent warning and lake-management methods through randomized control-to-mode identification, disturbance-matched active rivals, quantitative gates, and a confirmatory intervention falsifier. C addresses a strong hazard but sits closer to operational coupled forecasting, dynamical-eigenvalue warnings, DMD with inputs, and warning-triggered nutrient cessation; its intervention effect sizes and small-test design are less fully specified."},{"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":"A is more completely powered and operationalized, but B has the more distinctive remaining research question: whether a projection-matched nutrient-by-grazer intervention selectively changes an inferred reef-community mode and whether that change mediates recovery. The coral-cover masking problem has direct support, the matched low-projection and single-variable controls isolate the modal claim, and a gated aquarium pilot is credible. B's compositional, rare-species, and facility challenges reduce confidence but are not fatal."},{"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":"HIGH","rationale":"B is externally more distinctive because existing work already comes close to most of C's warning architecture, including operational joint chlorophyll–oxygen forecasting, ecological dynamical-eigenvalue warnings, DMD with controls, and prospective warning-triggered nutrient cessation. B retains a sharper causal contrast through equal-magnitude projection controls and gain-mediated recovery, while remaining testable in contained marine mesocosms."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the strongest combination of externally supported importance and a still-distinct causal experiment. Its novelty does not rest merely on applying modal terminology: the decisive increment is a randomized, projection-matched test separating ordinary nutrient and grazing effects from mode-specific leverage, followed by a mediation test tied to ecological recovery. A is the strongest design operationally and a close second, but its local lake-control package is less externally distinctive and substantially more resource-intensive. C is worthwhile but most crowded by close warning and forecasting precedents.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment is based only on the preserved records and their bounded public-web evaluations. Source claims were not independently re-opened, the searches were not systematic reviews, score calibration was inferred on a five-point ordinal scale, and no treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}