{"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":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"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 has weaker direct evidence of realized harm, but it retains a materially clearer incremental claim over adjacent hazard-map practices: lifecycle-aware presentation plus dependency and hold checks versus a latest-pointer rival. C addresses a better-supported problem, yet official geoscience collection policies already implement most of its lifecycle and deaccession package, leaving a narrower implementation experiment."},{"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 is more externally distinctive because its integrated hazard-catalog workflow was found only in adjacent and component-level prior art, and its user-selection comparison directly tests an operational safety outcome. A's core intervention closely matches established repository-management and deaccession practice; its remaining novelty is mainly the local 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 concern the same well-supported repository problem and collide substantially with established practice. C retains a somewhat more substantive incremental research question—combining service tiers, explicit publication and derivative dependency tracing, and physical-plus-lineage restore drills—whereas A's remaining claim is chiefly whether a particular aisle-bounded implementation improves local metrics."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny. It has identifiable adopters, excellent official and standards-based evidence, a safe read-only pilot, explicit comparative falsifiers, and a meaningful surviving contrast over a canonical latest-version pointer. Its problem prevalence still needs measurement, but that uncertainty is exactly addressed by the bounded audit. A and C have stronger direct problem evidence but substantially closer same-problem, same-lever prior art, reducing their external distinctiveness to local implementation-effectiveness studies.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the supplied preserved records and bounded public-web evaluations. It cannot verify source interpretation, unpublished practices, site-specific metadata quality, implementation costs, or worldwide novelty, and it does not infer treatment identity from proposal form or mechanism detail."}