{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C offers the safest and most bounded initial study and retains a useful comparison against KPI, static-multivariate, and predictive-process rivals, but its exact hidden precursor has weak direct support and its intervention claim remains downstream. B has close project-control prior art and a demanding design, yet it states a more consequential worker-and-delivery problem, cleanly separates descriptive dynamics from randomized control effects, supplies decisive predictive and intervention falsifiers, and retains a distinct empirical claim involving held-out recurrence, randomized modal response, and subgroup no-harm outcomes."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both retain contrastive organizational tests despite adjacent dynamic-monitoring and modal-control art. C has a more credible immediate evidence path: a retrospective sufficiency audit followed by a non-interventional shadow comparison with several explicit rivals and an identifiable authorizing route. A is closer to same-problem, same-lever system-dynamics policy analysis, relies on several externally unvalidated numerical thresholds, has unresolved power and crossover carryover concerns, and lacks a named or clearly secured authorizer."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B and A both face close modal project or operations prior art, but B preserves the stronger incremental research claim. Its staged design distinguishes endogenous dynamics, observed shocks, and randomized control effects; benchmarks against individual, shock, and bottleneck models; and requires both delivery improvement and disaggregated worker-safety success. A is testable but its signed operator-change trial is less clearly estimable, its threshold stack is weakly justified, and its adopter or authorization path remains indeterminate."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest worthwhile research candidate after scrutiny. It does not claim novelty for eigenanalysis, project control, rework dynamics, or protective workflow controls; instead, it isolates a specific empirical increment that could fail at several meaningful gates. The problem has credible external support, the adopter and oversight coalition is identifiable, and the proposed staged feasibility, randomized identification, and later locked-policy tests connect prediction to causal action while explicitly protecting quality and worker subgroups. Its scale, interference, and conditioning risks are substantial but are research-design risks rather than fatal defects.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved records and bounded public-web evaluations. The searches cannot exclude proprietary deployments, patents, unpublished organizational studies, or additional non-English precedents. Evidence comes from heterogeneous project, software, service, industrial-process, and occupational-health settings, so none of the records establishes prevalence, transportability, adequate statistical power, or realized organizational impact."}