{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__A","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B retains a clearer domain-specific incremental claim over adjacent practices: whether an integrated, steward-adjudicated lifecycle presentation reduces obsolete hazard-layer selection relative to a latest-version pointer. Its underlying harm frequency is less directly supported, but the read-only comparison can resolve that uncertainty. C addresses a better-established problem, yet most of its lifecycle and deaccession package is already prescribed in geological repositories, leaving only a narrower implementation increment involving service tiers, dependency tracing, and restore drills."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B offers the more externally distinctive research question and an explicit rival-based behavioral test with meaningful safety outcomes. A has strong evidence for the storage problem and a safe bounded pilot, but public policies already reproduce nearly all of its substantive lifecycle mechanism; its surviving contribution is mainly a local effectiveness evaluation of a particular shadow-pilot configuration."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__C","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both target the same well-supported problem and substantially collide with established geological-collection lifecycle practice. C has a somewhat sharper remaining increment—publication-and-derivative dependency tracing combined with storage-service tiers and a physical-retrieval-plus-lineage restore drill—whereas A's distinction rests more heavily on the bounded aisle-level evaluation format. The advantage is modest because neither record establishes that its incremental bundle is absent from nonpublic repository procedures."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest candidate after scrutiny because it preserves the clearest contrastive and externally distinctive claim, a real falsifier, a bounded read-only experiment, and credible scientific, records, and emergency-management authority paths. Its problem evidence is only partial, but that uncertainty is measurable and does not create a safety stop. A and C have stronger direct evidence that their repository problem exists, yet the core proposed response is already established practice; their remaining value is primarily local implementation-effectiveness research, with C slightly stronger than A because its dependency-and-restore increment is more substantively differentiated.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. The searches are bounded, differ somewhat in sources and terminology across proposals, and cannot exclude unpublished practices, proprietary systems, or jurisdiction-specific implementations. Integer ratings use a 1-to-5 scale, with higher values indicating stronger performance."}