{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography","judge_id":"J3","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"A has stronger direct evidence for version ambiguity and a safer operational framing, but much of its lifecycle composition closely follows established repository and archival practice. B retains a worthwhile incremental question despite close Wikidata and SEP analogues because it states a sharper label-plus-demotion versus label-only contrast, quantitative efficacy threshold, baseline stop rule, and representation and workload guardrails."},{"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":"HIGH","rationale":"Both leave a bounded, reversible test beyond provenance and version labeling, but A has materially stronger direct problem evidence, more authoritative operational precedents, clearer restore and dependency checks, and more concrete retrieval outcomes. C's equal-visibility and user-confusion premise remains largely unmeasured, and its proposed effect lacks A's evidentiary grounding."},{"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":"HIGH","rationale":"B and C target nearly the same interpretive-lifecycle problem, but B has closer evidence from deployed claim-ranking, editorial-retirement, and reparative-description practices and converts the remaining increment into a randomized, quantitatively falsifiable comparison. C is safely testable but relies more heavily on representation standards and adjacent infrastructure than on evidence of the asserted user error."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest research candidate because scrutiny leaves a precise empirical increment rather than merely an implementation package: whether governed claim-level demotion adds measurable value beyond labels alone. Its close prior art lowers broad novelty but also makes the intervention feasible, while its randomized design, explicit 20% threshold, problem-side stop rule, adopter path, rollback, and viewpoint-representation safeguards make the residual claim unusually decisive and worthwhile to test. Scores use a 1–5 scale.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. Opaque identifiers prevented treatment-label use, but differences in proposal structure, mechanism-disposition detail, search strategy, and source selection could still indirectly reflect upstream generation conditions. The bounded web records cannot establish exhaustive novelty, routine implementation, or prevalence."}