{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__B","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has the strongest direct evidence for its underlying problem, but its spectral fire-sale analysis and portfolio-adjustment lever are closely approached by several established research frameworks. B retains a narrower and more discriminating increment: a frozen dealer-panel alert contest with quantitative performance gates, followed only conditionally by randomized tests of modal effects. B's real-dealer trial may prove infeasible, but the retrospective shadow evaluation is independently worthwhile and can reject the proposal before that stage."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__B","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"A's institution-level composition and protected-party constraints are distinctive, but its action-response component depends on rare quasi-experimental episodes or broad admissible-response bounds, making the damping claim comparatively difficult to identify. B states sharper sealed-period detection thresholds, concrete comparators, placebo tests, effect sizes, timing, and harm stops, while also identifying a credible supervisory adopter path. Close DMD prior art narrows B's novelty but does not erase its testable empirical increment."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"C is easier to pilot and rests on stronger evidence that correlated liquidation feedback is consequential, but repeated fire-sale propagation, eigenvalue stability analysis, eigenvector monitoring, and portfolio reallocation are all represented in close prior art. A preserves a more distinctive institution-level claim combining locked-holdout modal detection with separately identified or robustly bounded action effects. The preference is weak because A's sparse-action identification and regime instability could eliminate that increment."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best combined research case after scrutiny. Its general problem and adopter path are well supported, its remaining contrast is unusually explicit, and its frozen shadow evaluation supplies a bounded, reversible test with multiple genuine rejection gates. It is not broadly novel—the underlying dynamic-mode, eigenvalue, systemic-liquidity, and prudential-control ideas have close precedents—and the proposed field randomization faces serious legal and operational uncertainty. Nevertheless, those limitations are separated from a useful first evidence step, giving B a better balance of distinctiveness, falsifiability, and practical research value than A or C.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the preserved records and bounded public-search summaries supplied here. Integer ratings use a 1–5 scale, with 5 strongest. Proprietary models, confidential supervisory practices, unpublished trials, patents, and the underlying source texts beyond these summaries were unavailable; consequently, external distinctiveness is provisional rather than a finding of world novelty."}