{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"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":3,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"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 offer bounded, labeled lacunae and face mature adjacent practices. C is more closely anticipated by explicit historiographic methods that already refuse closure and leave archival gaps open. B retains a somewhat clearer incremental package through its bounded source audit, status routing, reason-for-absence framing, recoverable conjecture, and staged comparison against footnotes and inline labels."},{"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 sources and a clean three-arm test, but its central lever closely matches documented narrative-restraint and leave-gaps-open practices. A is supported by broader evidence connecting archival gaps, false temporal precision, and experimentally demonstrated effects of causal narratives, while preserving a distinct claim about removing verified unsupported bridges and testing confidence calibration against embedded annotations."},{"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 extremely close and both have credible authorizers, falsifiers, safety controls, and bounded studies. A has a slight advantage because its evidence more directly connects causal narration to distorted belief, its six-passage design reduces dependence on one chapter, and its contrastive claim isolates verified bridge removal, bounded labeling, recoverable text, and calibrated causal confidence. B provides stronger staged screening and community-authority detail, so the margin is narrow."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__history_historiography__A","overall_rationale":"A is the strongest research candidate by a narrow margin. The precise historical-prose mechanism remains unproven, but the problem is supported by converging historiographic, uncertainty-visualization, and causal-narrative evidence. Its incremental claim remains distinguishable from source-text lacuna conventions and general archival-silence methodology, and its reversible multi-passage experiment has explicit rivals, measurable falsifiers, identifiable editorial authority, and safeguards against naturalizing archival absence. No fatal safety or feasibility issue is evident.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. The three proposals are highly similar in problem, intervention, comparators, and evidence maturity, so small differences in search coverage and study framing may reflect record construction rather than genuine underlying distinctiveness. No treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}