{"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__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":2,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B retains the more externally distinctive research gap: no close source isolates spacing and duplicate-chrome removal while holding verification semantics and evidence constant, and its study has explicit accuracy, noninferiority, UNKNOWN-safety, accessibility, and rival-condition falsifiers. C addresses a better-supported interruption problem, but learned conditional display, manual snooze, rapid-typing debounce, manual invocation, and do-not-disturb modes already occupy much of its causal territory."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C offers a clearer incremental comparison of automatic event-triggered cooldowns against relevance filtering, debounce, and manual snooze. A addresses a strongly supported problem, but the dark-screen principle, severe-event-only consoles, deduplication, explicit no-data states, and recoverable histories make its proposed bundle established practice; its remaining value is mainly local comparative effectiveness."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B has weaker direct evidence for its exact crowding claim, yet it preserves a specific, falsifiable, verification-domain increment not resolved by the retained art. A has stronger problem and implementation evidence but substantially lower external distinctiveness because close historical principles, deployed products, and controlled alarm-presentation research already combine most of its intervention."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","overall_rationale":"B is the best research candidate after scrutiny because it combines a meaningful though only partly demonstrated interpretation problem with the least-collided contrastive claim and a tightly bounded controlled study. Its typography-only rival, fixed semantic content, dual decision endpoints, evidence-recovery margin, UNKNOWN-safety bound, and accessibility stop conditions make failure informative. C is a strong runner-up with better direct problem evidence, but its intervention lies closer to existing conditional withholding and snooze practices. A is feasible and important but principally an evaluation of an established operational design pattern.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the preserved proposals and supplied public-web scrutiny records. Source completeness, study quality, and prior-art characterization were not independently reverified, and differing domains and outcome measures limit direct score comparability."}