{"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":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"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 evidence of retained, repurposed, and potentially overlapping overlays and preserves a clearer incremental contrast with ordinary governance: dependency- and hold-gated reversible retirement, successor-linked archival, and restoration testing. C is testable, but scrutiny characterizes its core lifecycle intervention as established practice and leaves a narrower systems-integration increment."},{"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":"Both offer bounded, reversible tests, but A combines a better-supported scoped problem with a substantive operational increment not fully shown in the closest guidance or products. B's distinctive contribution is primarily its evaluation protocol, while its frozen prevalence gate and numerical performance thresholds lack external grounding and its lifecycle core is established practice."},{"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":"C has somewhat stronger direct evidence for governance deficiencies, but its remaining claim is a narrow collection of workflow features adjacent to existing regulation and commercial tooling. B offers a more contrastive and decisively falsifiable paired shadow protocol, including a prevalence gate, safety noninferiority bounds, an efficiency endpoint, and a restoration drill, giving it greater residual research value despite weaker support for its chosen thresholds."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A is the strongest candidate because the underlying stale-overlay problem is directly supported, the adopter and authority path is credible, and the remaining claim is neither merely the established lifecycle practice nor only a novel evaluation wrapper. Its one-portfolio shadow pilot can measure detection, traceability, reviewer agreement, reconstruction, false positives, and provision stability without changing booked reserves or destroying evidence. Close prior art narrows the claim but does not eliminate a meaningful, testable increment.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and public-web scrutiny records. Public sources cannot reveal confidential institutional workflows, so apparently missing lifecycle or restoration controls may already exist internally. Product claims are not independently verified, and the searches do not establish world novelty, prevalence, market value, or realized causal impact."}