{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"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":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null},{"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}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__A","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"A has stronger direct evidence for version ambiguity and uneven versioning practice, plus a sharply bounded test of wrong-version selection, retrieval time, dependencies, and restoration. C is somewhat more specifically historiographical and ethically attentive, but its equal-visibility and user-confusion problem is less directly established."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__A","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"Both are testable and well supported, but B closely approaches deployed Wikidata ranking, SEP retirement, and reparative-description workflows. A retains a broader and more distinctive incremental claim around heterogeneous research derivatives, dependency-gated demotion, reversible quarantine, and sampled restoration."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__C","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B has stronger evidence and a cleaner quantitative experiment, but its causal lever substantially collides with existing statement-ranking and scholarly-entry retirement systems. C retains a more distinctive integrated question about trigger-based discovery demotion, preservation exceptions, community review, and measured distributional effects, although its problem evidence is weaker."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__A","overall_rationale":"A offers the best balance of a meaningful externally supported problem, a credible institutional authority path, a genuinely bounded and reversible pilot, strong evidence quality, and a remaining incremental contrast despite extensive adjacent prior art. Its safeguards also make dependency breakage and failed restoration explicit falsifying outcomes rather than deferred implementation concerns.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. Search scopes and source selection differ across records, so apparent differences in prior-art proximity or evidentiary strength may partly reflect retrieval choices rather than true differences in the external literature."}