{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance","judge_id":"J3","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"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":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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 distinct, falsifiable increments despite close spectral and stress-testing art. A is more worthwhile because its institution-level retrospective study is tightly bounded and its action claim permits identified or defensibly bounded responses without depending on a legally and operationally difficult real-dealer randomized trial. B has sharper numerical gates, but close DMD systemic-risk prior art and uncertain field-randomization feasibility reduce its expected research yield."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has the strongest direct evidence for the underlying problem and a feasible shadow pilot, but prior work already combines repeated fire-sale propagation, eigenvalue stability, eigenvector monitoring, and portfolio reallocation. A's remaining claim—incremental institution-level detection plus separately identified or robustly bounded action-conditioned damping—has a clearer external distinction while preserving a safe no-action first step."},{"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":"LOW","rationale":"B narrowly leads because its sealed-block comparator contest, fixed effect thresholds, placebo tests, and explicit harm gates define a more discriminating incremental claim than C's comparatively close adaptation of established fire-sale spectral analysis. C is easier to pilot and rests on stronger problem evidence, so the direction is weak; B's advantage depends on treating the retrospective alert study as the candidate step rather than presuming the later dealer trial is feasible."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A offers the best balance of meaningful external support, remaining distinctiveness, genuine falsifiers, and a credible bounded evidence path. Its closest analogues establish the ingredients but do not resolve the proposed institution-level holdout comparison or the separately identified or worst-case-bounded damping claim. Crucially, failure of detection ends the program before live action, and failure to identify or bound an action preserves detection-only use. Its main unresolved risks—regime instability, reflexivity, sparse action episodes, and undisclosed proprietary prior art—are material but directly exposed by the proposed gates rather than hidden by the design.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records, without independently verifying sources or inspecting excluded materials. Integer ratings use a 1–5 scale, with 5 strongest. All three records report bounded searches rather than exhaustive novelty reviews, so proprietary, confidential, patented, or differently termed prior art may alter the distinctiveness judgments."}