{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__A","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__A","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A has more direct external support for persistence, repurposing, and duplicated impacts, while preserving a narrower distinguishable increment around dependency-gated reversible retirement and restoration testing. C is testable and safe, but its core lifecycle-state intervention is more comprehensively anticipated by supervisory guidance, commercial workflows, and observed overlay retirement."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__A","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B supplies the sharpest quantitative protocol and falsifier, but its scoped prevalence premise is not externally demonstrated, its thresholds are largely stipulated, and its broader overlay scope makes valuation and tail-risk endpoints harder to interpret. A combines stronger problem evidence with a simpler bounded shadow comparison and a more substantive operational increment beyond ordinary governance."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__C","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both sit close to implemented lifecycle governance. B is the more worthwhile research candidate because its frozen prevalence gate, paired shadow design, restoration drill, and explicit safety, risk, and efficiency thresholds create a clearer discriminating experiment. C's incremental state-register features are feasible, but the evidence leaves less separation from existing governed workflows."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A offers the best balance of a well-supported material problem, credible institutional authority, a bounded no-live-change pilot, and a remaining contrastive claim that is narrower than the original concept but still operationally meaningful and falsifiable. Its advantage is not the number of mechanisms; it is the alignment between direct evidence of retained or overlapping overlays and a testable increment involving safe retirement, traceability, and demonstrated reconstruction.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment is limited to the supplied, differently composed public-source records. Source claims and product representations were not independently verified, confidential institutional workflows were unavailable, and differing search queries may account for some apparent differences in prior-art proximity."}