{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management","judge_id":"J3","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":5,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":5,"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 research increment after close prior art: it separates descriptive dynamics from randomized control effects, requires held-out lift over individual-metric and bottleneck rivals, and stages a separately powered locked-policy test with delivery, quality, and subgroup-strain outcomes. C has a credible shadow study, but its initial eight-week alert comparison tests prediction rather than the proposed intervention lever, and its ordinary-practice contrast is weakened by existing multimetric delivery management."},{"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 address a well-supported coupled workload and delivery problem, but B offers the more credible identification path: multiple independent programs, randomized protective controls, explicit separation of A, B, and shocks, simulation-based feasibility work, and a later powered policy comparison. A's single-unit VAR and short crossover face greater fragility from ridge-induced stability changes, carryover, regime shifts, and an unconfirmed authorizing site."},{"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":"A has a sharper causal operator-change claim and unusually strong problem evidence, but its estimability, crossover identification, and adopter path remain materially uncertain. C's retrospective data-sufficiency audit followed by a non-interventional shadow comparison is safer and more executable, with identifiable operational adopters and strong explicit rivals. This feasibility advantage narrowly outweighs A's stronger causal ambition."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest externally distinctive and worthwhile candidate. Its problem is meaningfully supported, its closest analogues leave a clear contrastive claim, and every major assertion has a consequential falsifier. The staged evidence path is ambitious but bounded: feasibility and power checks precede randomized identification, and operational policy testing occurs only after the mode and control effects pass stringent predictive, conditioning, contamination, and worker-safety gates. No unresolved safety or authority issue is fatal.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved records and public-web scrutiny summaries. Source contents were not independently rechecked, search completeness cannot be established, and score differences partly reflect proposal-specific study scales and reporting detail rather than observed empirical performance."}