{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"A retains a clearer distinctive increment after scrutiny: graph-wide modal warning and localization are compared against ordinary alarms, graph-aware detection, and a close RetryGuard-style controller at matched false-alert rate. Its offline replay and staging-only test is tightly bounded. C addresses an important problem, but a 2026 source already closely matches its telemetry-derived Jacobian, eigenvalue, modal-participation, and drift diagnostic core, leaving a riskier live-canary intervention as the main distinction."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B offers the stronger research candidate because it turns the remaining claim into a randomized, reversible staging comparison with sham, threshold, and dependency-aware arms, explicit validity gates, downstream-harm limits, and outcome-based falsification. C is testable and supported, but its diagnostic core has unusually close same-problem, same-lever prior art and its first causal comparison depends on a production canary."},{"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":"Both are credible and bounded. B is preferred because its controlled staged experiment directly tests mitigation effects under randomized pulses, handles finite-horizon amplification and model unreliability in the eligibility criteria, and measures both warning and operational outcomes against two comparators. A has a sharper retry-storm focus and an excellent low-risk detection study, but its proposed shadow evaluation provides weaker causal evidence for the claimed targeted damping benefit."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","overall_rationale":"B is the best overall candidate after all three comparisons. The broad overload-cascade problem and adopter path are externally supported, while the surviving claim remains meaningfully distinct from deployed collaborative overload control, multivariate anomaly detection, and method-level dynamic-mode prior art. Most importantly, its next evidence step is a small randomized and reversible staging experiment with explicit comparators, falsifiers, model-validity gates, harm budgets, and rollback. This preference rests on the strength of the contrastive experiment and evidence path, not on the number or sophistication of named mechanisms.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved records and external-evaluation summaries. Sources and searches were not independently verified, the three searches used overlapping but nonidentical queries and comparators, and absence of undisclosed, proprietary, patented, or unindexed implementations cannot be inferred. Integer ratings use a 1-to-5 scale."}