{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance","judge_id":"J2","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__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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":"HIGH","rationale":"A has stronger direct evidence of retained, repurposed, and potentially duplicative overlays, while preserving a narrower but substantive contrast over close governance prior art: dependency- and hold-gated reversible retirement with recoverable archival testing. B is exceptionally falsifiable, but its lifecycle core is documented established practice, its scoped prevalence premise remains unverified, and much of its residual distinctiveness lies in an evaluation protocol with somewhat arbitrary thresholds rather than a distinct causal intervention."},{"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":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both have well-supported problems, credible bank governance paths, safe shadow pilots, and good official evidence. A retains the clearer contrastive increment against prior art by combining prioritized staleness review, dependency and preservation gates, reversible deactivation, successor-linked archival, and restoration testing. C's enriched register is researchable, but its central governance-and-retirement package is more directly characterized as established practice and its success threshold is less explicit."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__B","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B offers the sharper preregistered falsifier and quantitative shadow protocol, but public evidence does not support its proposed prevalence and materiality thresholds, and its remaining novelty is primarily experimental procedure layered onto established lifecycle practice. C has stronger external support for the scoped credit-loss governance problem and a more intervention-like residual claim involving orphan and supersession detection, reconstructable archival retirement, exceptions, and controlled reinstatement."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__economics_finance__A","overall_rationale":"A is the strongest externally distinctive research candidate. The underlying problem is supported by official and professional evidence, adopters and authorities are clear, and close prior art leaves a bounded operational increment rather than eliminating the proposal. Its shadow pilot provides a real falsifier and avoids live reserve changes or evidence destruction. The remaining value is moderate rather than radical because supervisory guidance already covers much of overlay governance and removal.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment is limited to the supplied records and their nonuniform bounded web searches. Public sources cannot reveal confidential bank workflows or establish world novelty, actual stale-overlay prevalence, realized impact, or whether an institution already implements the claimed residual controls. Scores use a five-point ordinal scale."}