{"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__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":2,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":3,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B retains a clearer empirical increment over close project-control and modal prior art: randomized protective-control effects, blocked modal validation, and a separately powered locked-policy test. A is comparably falsifiable but has an unresolved authorizer path, fragile 84/20 estimation assumptions, and a particularly close eigenvalue-based organizational policy analogue."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__A","right_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has a more credible immediate adopter path and a lower-risk retrospective-plus-shadow evidence sequence. A offers a sharper randomized operator-change claim, but its feasibility depends on questionable sample adequacy, clarification of held-out gain estimation, carryover control, and authorization not yet tied to a willing unit."},{"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":"Both survive scrutiny, but B specifies stronger identification, predictive-lift, conditioning, contamination, subgroup-harm, and policy-stage falsifiers. C's eight-week shadow test is useful but cannot establish the intervention claim, and its baseline is weakened by existing multimetric delivery and predictive-process practice."}],"overall_top_choice":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__organizational_management__B","overall_rationale":"B is the most worthwhile candidate after scrutiny. The underlying coupled delivery-and-strain problem is well supported, the remaining claim is explicit and meaningfully distinct from project system dynamics, DMD with control, rework models, and Kanban, and its staged randomized design supplies real falsifiers with credible governance and rollback. Its principal uncertainty—whether the proposed program count and history can support stable modal inference—is directly addressed by a bounded simulation and feasibility gate rather than left implicit.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and public-web scrutiny records. Source claims were not independently re-browsed, proprietary and unindexed practice remains unknown, and differences in search framing and source selection may affect apparent distinctiveness."}