{"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__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"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, falsifiable reader studies and credible editorial authority paths, but C encounters unusually close 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 same-problem/same-lever analogue is primarily digital collection and interface visualization, leaving a clearer incremental claim for synthesis prose. B also usefully conditions intervention testing on first confirming unsupported transitions and excess confidence."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"The proposals are very close, but A has the slightly stronger research case. Its evidence triangulates archival-gap scholarship with experiments showing that causal narratives can distort belief and with participant research on representations of historical uncertainty. Its proposed multi-passage comparison, recoverable cut-text workflow, and explicit causal-confidence outcome produce a somewhat stronger and more generalizable bounded test. B remains highly worthwhile, but its closest digital-humanities analogue already targets perceived completeness using meaningful representations of absence."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A and C are similarly feasible and testable, but A retains more external distinctiveness. C's core move—refusing narrative closure and leaving archive-produced gaps open—is directly anticipated by multiple historiographic practices, so its novelty rests heavily on standardizing the visual treatment and evaluating it. A also faces mature adjacent lacuna conventions, but the retained evidence more cleanly separates those source-transcription practices from its proposed removal of unsupported bridges in synthetic narration and comparative calibration test."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","overall_rationale":"A is the strongest candidate because it combines a meaningful, independently grounded problem with the clearest remaining incremental claim, strong experimental falsifiers, a reversible multi-passage evidence step, and identifiable editorial authority. Its exact causal diagnosis is still unproven, so the source-to-sentence audit remains essential, but the preserved record supports testing rather than treating the intervention as established. No fatal safety or feasibility issue is apparent if contextual preservation, accessibility, affected-party review, and rollback criteria are enforced.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment uses only the three supplied preserved records and their bounded public-web evaluations. Search sets, terminology, and source accessibility differed across records, so differences in located prior art may partly reflect search recall rather than true external distinctiveness. None of the records establishes exhaustive novelty, routine adopter demand, or realized reader benefit."}