{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":3,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"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":"MODERATE","rationale":"A retains the sharper incremental claim: randomized control-to-mode identification followed by a powered, disturbance-matched comparison against coordinate-wise and nonlinear nonmodal policies. C addresses a better-established hazard and offers a useful retrospective first step, but operational coupled forecasting, dynamical-eigenvalue warnings, and warning-triggered nutrient cessation make its remaining increment closer to prior art."},{"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 preserve distinctive intervention-linked modal claims, but A specifies stronger identification, quantitative gates, confirmatory effect thresholds, power requirements, and active rivals in a comparatively tractable freshwater mesocosm setting. B is potentially high-value but depends on noisier coral-community censuses, compositional and rare-species complications, and a less fully specified treatment and sampling design."},{"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":"LOW","rationale":"C has stronger direct hazard evidence and an easier bounded validation path, but its warning component lies near operational multivariate forecasting and ecological dynamical-eigenvalue work. B's projection-matched nutrient-by-grazer experiment and gain-mediated recovery claim are more externally distinctive and retain greater research upside, narrowly outweighing its higher estimation and feasibility risk."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__biology_ecology__A","overall_rationale":"A offers the best balance of meaningful supported need, externally distinguishable causal increment, explicit falsification, bounded authorization and safety conditions, and a rigorous staged experiment. Its central ecological mode may fail to exist or remain stable, but that uncertainty is directly gated and would yield an informative null without field exposure.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment is limited to the three supplied preserved records and their bounded public-web evaluations. Sources, search completeness, facility capacity, jurisdiction-specific approvals, effect-size assumptions, and claimed absence of closer prior art were not independently verified; no treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}