{"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":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":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":2,"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 evidence and the easiest bounded pilot, but its spectral fire-sale mechanism is particularly close to established eigenvalue, eigenvector, matrix-propagation, and portfolio-reallocation work. A preserves a more distinctive institution-level contrast by separating observational mode detection from identified or robustly bounded action-conditioned damping, with explicit holdout, rival, drift, residual, and incidence falsifiers. Its data and identification demands reduce feasibility, so the preference is moderate rather than decisive."},{"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 is supported by multiple empirical and official sources and can test its remaining increment through a frozen-snapshot, analysis-only comparison of modal and cost-matched baseline adjustments. B has unusually precise falsifiers, but very close public DMD and eigenvalue-based systemic-risk precedents narrow its distinctiveness, while its proposed real-dealer randomized interventions face substantial legal, consent, interference, compliance, and feasibility uncertainty. C therefore offers the stronger near-term research return."},{"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":"HIGH","rationale":"Both concern coupled balance-sheet instability and face adjacent spectral prior art, but A advances through a retrospective no-action study and explicitly refuses causal damping claims unless action responses are identified or defensibly bounded. B's detector is closely approached by a recent financial-system DMD study, and its distinctive randomized-control component is much less credibly executable. A retains the more worthwhile empirical question with a safer authority path."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A is the strongest overall candidate because scrutiny leaves a meaningful and comparatively distinctive empirical contrast: whether institution-level transition modes add locked-holdout warning value and whether separately identified or bounded actions reduce worst-case modal gain without violating residual, drift, or affected-party constraints. Its evidence step is demanding but bounded and non-live, its causal limitations are stated rather than hidden, and failure at either detection or action identification cleanly stops advancement. C is more immediately feasible and better supported at the problem level, but is closer to mature fire-sale spectral analysis; B is precisely testable but depends on a much less credible field-randomization path for its main distinctive increment.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. Public searches cannot exclude proprietary models, confidential supervisory methods, patents, or unpublished trials, and the records differ in domain scale and proposed evidence burden. No treatment identity or prior internal outcome was inferred."}