{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"A is more tightly focused on retry storms and has a particularly safe shadow-mode study, but its narrower pre-threshold modal signature is not directly supported and its first test does not establish mitigation benefit. B offers the stronger worthwhile increment: a randomized, reversible staging comparison that tests both warning and outcome improvement against two credible comparators, with explicit failure and harm criteria."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C addresses a better-supported operational problem, but a 2026 source already closely matches its telemetry-derived Jacobian, eigenvalue, drift, and modal-participation diagnostic core. A retains a clearer domain-specific gap between existing retry-storm control, graph-aware detection, and graph-wide transition-mode monitoring, and its offline/staging evidence step is more bounded than C's live canary."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B faces established method-level and overload-control prior art, but no retained source closely implements its full domain claim, and its randomized staging design directly tests causal mitigation against both ordinary thresholds and dependency-aware detection. C has closer same-problem, same-lever diagnostic prior art and requires a riskier live canary to establish its remaining increment."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest candidate after all three pairwise comparisons. Its broad problem is supported, its remaining claim is explicit and falsifiable, and its next step can causally test both detection and mitigation in an isolated, reversible environment. It is not clearly novel at the component level, but the evidence leaves a meaningful application-level increment without exposing production users. A is a close second with a sharper retry-storm focus but a less decisive first test; C has the strongest problem evidence but the closest direct collision and the least bounded intervention step.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved records and bounded public-web evaluations. The searches are not exhaustive of patents, proprietary systems, paywalled literature, unpublished deployments, or citation networks, so distinctiveness is comparative and provisional rather than a world-novelty determination."}