{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":3,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__A","supported_problem":2,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":3,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has stronger direct evidence that uncontrolled temporary control-system changes persist and cause serious harm, plus a sharper held-out test of actual response, stability, restoration, and interpretability against two comparators. B remains researchable, but multiple-model supervisory control already addresses regime mismatch and candidate eligibility closely, while the alleged real-world prevalence of callable superseded artifacts is unsupported."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__C","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C is supported by control-specific regulatory guidance and tests whether withdrawing an overlay's authority changes consequential plant-response measures without compromising safety. A is exceptionally bounded and reversible, but its evidence is transferred largely from model registries and generic asset lifecycle systems, and its main endpoint—adjudicated stale-eligibility rate—does not establish improved control behavior."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__B","right_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"Both face substantial adjacent prior art and weak prevalence evidence. B is marginally more worthwhile because it tests the substantive tradeoff between invalid current-regime selection and preservation of rare-regime recovery, whereas A chiefly measures a classification-dependent eligibility proxy using an arbitrary 50% threshold. A's more precise protocol does not overcome that weaker outcome relevance."}],"overall_top_choice":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__systems_cybernetics__C","overall_rationale":"C offers the best combination of a directly supported safety-relevant problem, an identifiable accountable adopter, a remaining contrastive claim beyond management-of-change and Simplex prior art, and a reversible offline experiment with consequential behavioral outcomes and explicit falsifiers. Its distinctiveness is incremental rather than foundational, but the evidence justifies testing the increment more strongly than for A or B.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved records and external-evaluation summaries. It did not verify sources independently, inspect proprietary implementations or paywalled standards, infer treatment identity, or treat the stated prior-art dispositions as a ranking."}