{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__C","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":3,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B faces closer prior art, but it has the better-supported institutional problem, a sharper contrast against label-only treatment, a quantitative efficacy threshold, and explicit non-inferiority guardrails. C is somewhat more distinctive as an integrated overlay-governance package, but its equal-visibility and user-confusion premise lacks direct empirical measurement and its success threshold is less fully specified."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both are credible and highly testable, but B isolates a clearer historiographic question: whether demotion adds value beyond labeling while preserving plural interpretation. A has stronger direct evidence for version ambiguity, yet much of its proposed workflow closely composes established versioning, repository withdrawal, retention, tombstone, and restoration practices, leaving a more operational incremental claim."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__C","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"A has stronger problem evidence and more precise restoration and dependency tests, but its intervention lies nearer established digital-edition and repository lifecycle practice. C retains a more distinctive research question about trigger-based discovery authority for plural interpretive overlays, community-reviewed exceptions, and distributional effects. The preference is narrow because C's central user-confusion premise is less well supported."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best combined research value after scrutiny. Its components have close precedents in Wikidata, SEP, and reparative-description workflows, so it is not broadly novel; however, the remaining claim is explicit, consequential, and cleanly falsifiable through a reversible randomized comparison of label-plus-demotion versus label-only treatment. The adopter and authority path is credible, the evidence base is diverse and direct, and serious presentism and suppression risks are addressed with measurable guardrails and rollback. A is more strongly grounded but more operationally conventional, while C is more distinctive but rests on weaker direct problem evidence and less precise efficacy criteria.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment was limited to the three supplied preserved records and their bounded public-web evaluations. Source claims were evaluated as presented rather than independently re-opened, and the records differ in problem scope and search framing, which limits exact score comparability. No treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}