{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","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":3,"researchability":3,"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":"B presents the sharper incremental research claim: a claim-level, randomized comparison of label-plus-demotion against label-only treatment, with a quantitative efficacy threshold and representation, citation, workload, and appeal guardrails. A is well grounded and safely testable, but its heterogeneous artifact scope and integrated repository workflow are broader, while much of its versioning, withdrawal, retention-review, tombstone, and restore-testing package is already established practice."},{"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, clearer operational precedent, a more fully bounded pilot, and concrete dependency and restoration failure criteria. C may be somewhat more distinctive as discovery governance for interpretive overlays, but its equal-visibility and user-confusion premise lacks direct empirical support and its efficacy and safety thresholds remain less specified."},{"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":"Both target stale interpretations and face suppression risks, but B has closer evidence from deployed statement ranking, scholarly-entry retirement, and reparative-description workflows, plus a baseline stop rule, randomized comparator, quantitative improvement threshold, and explicit rollback triggers. C relies more heavily on representation standards and adjacent infrastructure and leaves key effect sizes and tolerances to later preregistration."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest worthwhile candidate after scrutiny. Its problem is externally supported enough for a bounded study, its adopter and authority path is credible, and close prior art is converted into a precise remaining contrast rather than ignored. The reversible 100-claim experiment can genuinely falsify the incremental claim while monitoring citation integrity, viewpoint representation, workload, appeals, and suppression. Its novelty is incremental rather than world-level, but the exact history-specific claim-level randomized package remains externally distinguishable in the retained evidence.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved records and bounded public-web evaluations. It does not infer treatment identity, independently verify sources, inspect omitted or inaccessible prior art, or treat nominal prior-art dispositions and mechanism counts as rankings."}