{"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":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"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":"C has somewhat stronger evidence for the broad operational problem, but its telemetry-derived Jacobian, eigenvalue, spectral-drift, and modal-participation core is closely matched by a direct 2026 analogue. A retains a clearer incremental question around pre-threshold retry-cascade warning, with a production-grounded rival and a safer offline-and-staging comparison at matched false-alert rate. A's exact pre-threshold signature remains unproven, so the advantage is moderate rather than decisive."},{"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 design: it distinguishes asymptotic modal behavior from finite-horizon transient amplification, gates ill-conditioned or drifting models, and uses randomized reversible staging pulses against sham and two substantive comparators. C is worthwhile but faces unusually close diagnostic prior art and moves toward a live canary before the causal advantage of modal targeting is established."},{"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 sharply bounded and has a meaningful retry-storm use case, credible telemetry, and explicit warning-time falsifiers. B is preferable because its randomized staged interventions directly test whether mode-nominated controls improve outcomes, while its conditioning and finite-horizon-gain checks address important ways eigenvalue-based reasoning can fail. The margin is limited because B's broader composition creates more estimation and staging-to-production uncertainty."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__computer_science__B","overall_rationale":"B is the best externally distinctive and worthwhile candidate after scrutiny. The problem and adopter path are credible, the closest literature establishes components without establishing the full microservice intervention claim, and the next experiment is bounded, reversible, comparative, and genuinely causal. Its claim can fail through unavailable validity windows, unstable or ill-conditioned modes, comparator parity, excess false alerts, or downstream harm. No fatal safety or feasibility issue is present at the staging-only first step.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. The searches are bounded and cannot establish world novelty, undisclosed deployment history, patentability, or production transfer. All three candidates share substantial conceptual overlap, so distinctions partly depend on the retained sources and the specificity of each proposed comparison."}