{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"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},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":3,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"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 meaningful hazard-specific incremental claim over adjacent lifecycle practices and directly tests obsolete-release selection against a latest-pointer rival. A addresses a better-documented problem, but its substantive workflow is already closely reproduced by several 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 the stronger external-distinctiveness case: the searched record documents relevant components and analogues but not the integrated hazard-catalog intervention or its comparative performance claim. C's broad lifecycle approach is established practice, and its surviving tiering, dependency, and restore-drill increment is narrower and harder to validate because dependency completeness and simulated outcomes may be weak proxies for safe operational performance."},{"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 address strongly supported repository problems and both collide with established lifecycle and deaccession practice. C retains a somewhat more substantive contrastive increment—service tiers plus explicit scientific-dependency tracing and physical-and-lineage restore drills—whereas A's principal remaining distinction is the aisle-bounded shadow evaluation itself. C's greater dependency and measurement burden narrows, but does not erase, that advantage."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","overall_rationale":"B is the best research candidate after scrutiny because it combines a consequential safety problem, identifiable scientific and records authorities, a reversible read-only pilot, explicit performance and false-demotion falsifiers, and a defensible incremental contrast with the closest documented practice. Its problem prevalence and realized harm remain unmeasured, but those uncertainties are precisely addressable by the bounded pilot. A and C have stronger direct evidence that repository capacity and preservation tensions exist, yet their central interventions are already established; their residual value is chiefly local effectiveness testing.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved candidates and external-evaluation records. The searches are bounded, differ somewhat in terminology and source selection across proposals, and cannot exclude unpublished practices, proprietary systems, uneven policy compliance, or differently described prior art."}