{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"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__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"C_vs_B","left_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both retain a testable increment, but C encounters unusually close same-problem, same-lever precedents in narrative restraint and deliberately leaving historical gaps open. B more clearly sequences a source-to-sentence audit before intervention and tests several relevant rivals and harms, giving it greater residual research value."},{"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 has a stronger evidentiary bridge from documented historical gaps and structured silences to experimental evidence that causal narratives can distort belief. Its six-passage comparison is also less hostage to one passage than C's proposed pilot, while C's core lever closely matches established narrative-restraint practice."},{"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 candidates are very close, but A has the stronger underlying evidence for the proposed reader-level causal mechanism, a broader multi-passage test, and a sharply specified comparison against embedded uncertainty annotations. B's staged audit is excellent, but its retained evidence is somewhat more indirect with respect to causal confidence in historical synthesis."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","overall_rationale":"A is the strongest candidate after scrutiny because it combines a meaningful, independently grounded problem with the best evidence connecting narrative linkage to distorted causal belief, a distinct contrastive claim beyond mature lacuna and uncertainty practices, and a reversible six-passage study with clear falsifiers and safety outcomes. Its novelty remains incremental rather than categorical, but the evidence supports a worthwhile bounded experiment.","blinding_limitations":"The three records describe highly overlapping interventions and rely on separate bounded searches with partly different source sets, so differences may reflect search retrieval rather than true proposal distinctiveness. Integer scores use a five-point scale inferred from the requested dimensions; no treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}