{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":3,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__A","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has substantially stronger direct external support for the underlying control-system problem and tests whether withdrawing an overlay's authority changes meaningful plant-response or interpretability outcomes. A is cleaner and easier to execute, but its evidence mainly establishes analogous staleness and lifecycle practices, while its primary endpoint can improve through administrative relabeling without demonstrating operational benefit."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__A","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A offers the more bounded and decisive study: a frozen trace, complete family enrollment, identical-event replay, explicit denominators, and zero-loss conditions. B is closer to longstanding multiple-model supervisory selection and asks a short shadow study to establish rare-regime recovery, an outcome that may not be adequately represented within the proposed evidence window."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__C","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__B","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C is grounded in official evidence that temporary control changes can persist and cause serious harm, and it contrasts the proposal against both the current stack and age-only expiry using held-out disturbances and operational response measures. B's motivating failure mode is less directly evidenced, its causal lever substantially overlaps established supervisory model selection, and its rare-regime preservation claim is harder to test within the bounded pilot."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny because it combines the best-supported and most consequential problem with a genuinely contrastive, falsifiable offline test of authority withdrawal. Its closest prior art is substantial—management of temporary changes and Simplex-style shadowing narrow the novelty—but the retained evidence does not show the proposed overlay-level comparison integrating lifecycle gates, attribution checks, restoration, and comparison with age-only expiry. Identification and local-linearization limits reduce confidence but are explicit halt conditions rather than fatal defects.","blinding_limitations":"The opaque identifiers concealed treatment labels and no treatment identity was inferred. The proposals nevertheless differed visibly in domain framing, study complexity, prior-art confidence, and source composition; judgments therefore depend on the completeness and accuracy of the supplied public-web records, which did not include proprietary deployments, exhaustive incident evidence, or full standards and patent searches."}