{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":5,"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":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__A","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":"The central design package closely reproduces established dark-screen, filtering, deduplication, severe-event-only, and recoverable-history practices; only a narrow comparative-effectiveness question remains."}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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":"B leaves the clearer externally distinctive increment: a verification-specific, content-controlled isolation test with explicit guarantee, decision, evidence-recovery, rival, and UNKNOWN-safety criteria. C addresses a better-supported problem, but conditional withholding, rapid-typing debounce, manual snooze, visible quiet states, and explicit invocation already closely approximate its intervention."},{"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 problem evidence but a substantially less-resolved contrastive claim and a tightly bounded falsification study. A's problem is important and strongly supported, yet the proposed causal lever and most of its safeguards are established operational-console practice, leaving mainly a local effectiveness comparison."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__computer_science__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C retains a prospective research gap around transparent automatic post-rejection and rapid-edit cooldowns compared with manual snooze, debounce, and relevance filtering. A is more strongly supported and operationally important, but its protected-quiet package has much closer historical, experimental, and deployed precedents."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__computer_science__B","overall_rationale":"B offers the best balance of meaningful risk, external distinctiveness, explicit contrast, real falsifiers, and a bounded low-risk evidence step. Its exact crowding hypothesis remains uncertain, but that uncertainty is measurable rather than fatal, and the retained evidence does not already resolve the fixed-content verification-interface comparison. C is worthwhile but more crowded by close AI-editor prior art; A is primarily a comparative-effectiveness study of established practice.","blinding_limitations":"The records themselves disclosed prior-art dispositions, source characterizations, and research-value judgments, so assessment could not be blind to those record-level conclusions. I treated them as claims to be checked against the underlying analogues and evidence and did not infer treatment identity."}