{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__A","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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 retains a clearer externally distinctive increment: lifecycle-aware hazard-layer presentation can be tested directly against a canonical latest-version pointer using obsolete-selection and false-demotion outcomes. A addresses a better-documented problem, but its substantive workflow is closely reproduced by multiple established geologic-repository policies, leaving mainly a local implementation-effectiveness study."},{"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 adjacent rather than near-comprehensive prior art and states a crisp behavioral contrast with quantitative safety thresholds in a bounded read-only pilot. C preserves a testable tiering-plus-dependency-plus-restore increment, but most of its causal package is already established repository practice and its simulated space and retrieval benefits are less directly tied to the asserted problem."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__A","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both confront a strongly supported problem with credible authorities and safe shadow pilots, and both substantially collide with established practice. C nevertheless retains a somewhat more contrastive increment—service tiers combined with scientific-dependency tracing and restore drills—whereas A's principal remaining distinction is the aisle-bounded evaluation of an otherwise closely reproduced lifecycle workflow."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny because it combines a meaningful, partly supported safety problem with a specific incremental claim not fully absorbed by the located practices. Its 30-day read-only comparison against a concrete rival has direct behavioral outcomes, a genuine null result, a quantitative false-demotion guardrail, identifiable scientific and records authorities, and no unresolved safety stop. A and C have stronger direct evidence that their underlying repository problem exists, but their central interventions are already established; their remaining value is narrower local implementation research.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment is based only on the supplied preserved records and their bounded public-web evaluations. Source claims were not independently reopened, unpublished practices and local catalog conditions remain unknown, and the integer ratings express comparative judgment rather than validated interval measurements."}