{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":3,"researchability":4,"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 problem support, but its core spectral fire-sale analysis and portfolio reallocation lever are closely approached by several mature research streams. B retains a narrower and more explicit increment: a frozen dealer-panel alert contest followed, only conditionally, by separately authorized randomized tests of modal amplitude or gain. Its shadow evaluation is capable of rejecting the idea before the difficult live 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":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B supplies sharper quantitative gates and a stronger causal test, but close financial DMD and eigenvalue-contagion precedents reduce distinctiveness, while its real-dealer randomized intervention faces substantial legal and operational uncertainty. A's institution-level combination of locked-holdout modal detection, action-specific identification or bounded response sets, worst-case damping, and affected-party budgets leaves a broader research gap. Its no-action first study remains worthwhile even if damping cannot later be identified."},{"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":"MODERATE","rationale":"C is highly researchable and addresses a well-established problem, but repeated fire-sale propagation, spectral stability, eigenvector monitoring, and risk-reducing portfolio reallocation already cover much of its proposed contribution. A has weaker evidence for the exact hidden mode and a harder action-identification problem, yet its remaining contrast—single-institution transition modes plus separately justified robust damping and incidence constraints—is more externally distinctive and can first be tested retrospectively without live action."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A is the best research candidate on balance because the scrutiny leaves a comparatively substantive institution-level empirical contrast and rates its remaining research value high. Its proposed retrospective study can independently falsify modal detection, while any damping claim is appropriately withheld unless action responses are identified or defensibly bounded. B is a close second with superior quantitative test design but closer direct modal prior art and a less credible live experimental path. C has the best-supported problem but the densest overlap with established spectral fire-sale and portfolio-intervention research.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the preserved records and their bounded public-source searches. It cannot verify source completeness, confidential supervisory or proprietary implementations, data availability, legal authority, or field-trial feasibility. Differences in search framing and source accessibility may affect apparent distinctiveness, and no treatment identity was inferred."}