{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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 has the strongest direct problem support and the easiest bounded pilot, but several sources already combine fire-sale propagation, spectral stability, eigenvectors, and portfolio reallocation, leaving a relatively narrow implementation increment. A's institution-level weekly detector and separately identified or robustly bounded action-conditioned damping claim is less directly validated but more externally distinctive, has clear falsifiers, and begins with a safe retrospective study."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C addresses a better-supported fund-level problem with a practical frozen-snapshot pilot and a credible risk-committee adoption path. B has unusually precise tests, but very close 2026 dynamic-mode systemic-risk prior art substantially reduces distinctiveness, while the real-dealer randomized intervention is legally, operationally, and ethically much harder than its initial shadow evaluation."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both retain falsifiable increments beyond adjacent spectral finance work. A offers the more distinctive institution-level separation of observational detection from identified or bounded action response, with a feasible no-action first study and explicit refusal to infer control from observational modes. B's alert contest is highly testable, but its core detector closely approaches located DMD prior art and its proposed causal trial faces major authority, interference, consent, and feasibility barriers."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny because it preserves a meaningful, testable increment beyond the located prior art while directly addressing the central causal-identification weakness of financial modal analysis. Its staged design can reject detection on locked retrospective data before considering intervention, and permits damping claims only where action effects are identified or defensibly bounded. C is more immediately practical and better supported, but its remaining distinction is narrower; B is quantitatively crisp but closest to newly located same-lever prior art and least feasible beyond shadow analysis.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. Source claims were not independently rechecked, proprietary and unpublished implementations remain unobservable, and no treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred. Integer ratings use a 1–5 scale, with higher values indicating stronger performance."}