{"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":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":3,"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 more bounded initial study and appears somewhat farther from same-domain modal prior art, but B is the more worthwhile candidate overall: it separates descriptive dynamics from randomized control effects, states decisive predictive and intervention falsifiers, includes subgroup no-harm outcomes, and tests an operational policy rather than stopping primarily at shadow alerts. B's ambitious sample and interference requirements reduce confidence but are explicitly gated by feasibility and power work."},{"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":"HIGH","rationale":"C retains a clearer incremental comparison against KPI, static multivariate, and conventional predictive baselines and begins with a genuinely bounded retrospective audit and shadow test. A faces closer same-problem, same-lever system-dynamics prior art, relies on several externally unvalidated numerical thresholds, and lacks a specific willing authorizer, making its subsequent randomized operator-change claim less research-ready."},{"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":"Both encounter close organizational modal-control prior art, but B more carefully distinguishes endogenous transition modes from randomized control effects and observed shocks. Its staged cluster design, predictive-lift criterion, contamination checks, locked-policy test, and disaggregated harm margins yield a stronger falsifiable contribution and a more credible authority path than A's single-unit crossover proposal."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny because the broader workload, rework, dependency, delivery, and worker-harm problem is independently supported, while the remaining claim is explicitly contrastive and can fail at multiple stages. Its direct project-control analogue substantially limits novelty, and feasibility depends on simulation-based power, adequate independent programs, adherence, and interference control. Those are serious gates rather than fatal defects, and the proposal preserves value by separating mode discovery, randomized control identification, and a later powered policy comparison.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. Treatment identities and earlier outcomes were not inferred. The searches were bounded to eight retained public sources per proposal and cannot exclude proprietary deployments, unindexed studies, patents, or additional non-English prior art."}