{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__A","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A addresses a strongly evidenced operational problem and offers a safe replay study, but its central approach closely matches longstanding dark-screen practice and deployed event consoles. B's exact spacing-and-chrome-only effect on verification semantics remains uncertain, yet that uncertainty is bounded by a strong controlled design, explicit safety endpoints, and substantially less direct prior-art collision."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C retains a distinct prospective comparison of transparent event-triggered cooldowns against continuous eligibility, relevance filtering, debounce, and manual snooze. A's remaining claim is useful local comparative effectiveness research, but the underlying problem-lever package is already established across guidance, experiments, and products."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has stronger direct problem evidence and excellent implementation feasibility, but several close systems already withhold or snooze suggestions using developer-state or timing signals. B has weaker evidence for the exact crowding mechanism, yet its fixed-content design directly tests that uncertainty, includes a typography-only rival and meaningful UNKNOWN-safety constraints, and faces no equally close verification-specific implementation in the retained record."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best combination of external distinctiveness and worthwhile uncertainty reduction. Its broader problem is supported, the exact causal claim is unresolved rather than assumed, the adopter and authority path is credible, and the proposed study has sharp success, noninferiority, safety, accessibility, and falsification criteria. C is a close second because its evidence base and feasibility are stronger, but its incremental space is more crowded by same-problem, same-lever prior art. A remains testable and operationally relevant but is least distinctive.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved records and did not independently inspect sources. Opaque identifiers prevented treatment-label inference, although proposal domains and differing prior-art findings were necessarily visible. Integer ratings use a 1–5 scale, with 5 strongest."}