{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both offer bounded, reversible tests for a meaningful but not yet directly measured reader-calibration problem. C faces closer conceptual prior art: Hartman's narrative restraint and Topouzova's explicit practice of leaving archival gaps open address the same problem through substantially the same lever. B's closest evidence concerns absence visualization and source-text lacuna conventions, leaving a clearer incremental claim for applying a labeled lacuna to unsupported connective prose and comparing it with inline labels."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"The candidates are very close, and B has an especially prudent two-stage audit before intervention. A receives a slight preference because its evidence separates the adjacent precedents more cleanly: archival-gap methodology, documentary-edition conventions, uncertainty visualization, and causal-narrative experiments each support a component without establishing the proposed synthesis-prose workflow. Its six-passage study also offers a somewhat stronger bounded test of whether effects generalize beyond one chapter."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has strong historiographic grounding, but that grounding also reveals the closest collision: established scholarship already advocates refusing narrative closure and leaving evidentiary gaps open. C preserves a testable increment in its visual grammar and reader comparison, yet A's record leaves more external distance between prior art and the complete intervention while retaining equally concrete falsifiers, authorizers, safety stops, and measurable outcomes."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","overall_rationale":"A is the strongest overall research candidate by a narrow margin. The problem is meaningful and supported by converging historiographic, visualization, and causal-narrative evidence, while the exact historical-prose effect remains genuinely unresolved. Its contrastive claim is explicit, the study is reversible and bounded, the outcomes include both intended calibration gains and major failure modes, and the retained prior art does not show the complete workflow. B is nearly equivalent and could reasonably prevail with stronger evidence for its synthesis-specific diagnosis; C is worthwhile but less externally distinctive because its central restraint lever has unusually close conceptual precedents.","blinding_limitations":"The three proposals are highly similar, and each was scrutinized with a different source set. Apparent distinctiveness may therefore reflect search recall—especially C's discovery of direct narrative-restraint precedents—rather than a true difference in world novelty. The records do not independently establish prevalence, adoption demand, or realized effects, and the numerical assessments use a five-point scale inferred from the requested integer fields."}