{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":5,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B retains the stronger incremental claim after close project-control, rework, DMD-control, and Kanban comparisons: it separates descriptive dynamics from randomized control effects, requires prospective superiority to metric and bottleneck rivals, and stages a powered locked-policy test with subgroup safeguards. C is credible but overlaps more heavily with established multivariate project control and predictive-process monitoring, and its intervention claim remains confounded until a later study."},{"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":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both offer explicit falsifiers and causal trials, but B has the more credible research path: multiple independent programs, randomized identification of control effects, separation of shocks, blocked validation, and identifiable governance roles. A's signed operator-change contrast is distinctive, yet its single-unit history, arbitrary threshold stack, crossover carryover risk, ridge-induced stability distortion, and lack of a committed competent authorizer make the proposed inference less secure."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"A narrowly wins because it states a more consequential and contrastive causal claim—randomized signed changes in transition dynamics versus ordinary and forecast-based management—with clear service, worker, subgroup, and spillover falsifiers. C has the safer and easier shadow-validation step and clearer adopter classes, but its initial alerting contribution is closer to established multivariate monitoring and predictive-process practice. A's feasibility and authorization weaknesses keep confidence low."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","overall_rationale":"B best combines a supported delivery-and-worker-strain problem, a distinct remaining empirical claim, genuine predictive and intervention falsifiers, a staged bounded evidence program, credible authorizer and oversight roles, and strong rollback conditions. Its components have substantial adjacent prior art, but the cross-program randomized composition remains worthwhile to test. The required feasibility and simulation-based power phase is important because 32 programs over 24 weeks may still be insufficient under heterogeneity, interference, contamination, and unstable modes.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment is limited to the supplied preserved records and public-web scrutiny summaries; source claims were not independently rechecked. Differences in proposal detail, search terminology, and evaluator corrections may affect apparent strength. Opaque identifiers prevented treatment-label inference, and named mechanisms were not treated as evidence by themselves."}