{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__C","supported_problem":5,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":4,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__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__philosophy__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C addresses a strongly supported problem with an excellent bounded test, but its central intervention—teacher wait time plus silent pre-discussion writing—is already established in both general and philosophy-specific practice. B also composes established technical primitives, yet its integrated philosophy-facing presentation and reader-interpretation claim is less directly reproduced, has concrete adopter systems and records, and can be cleanly falsified in a low-risk archived-record study."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__A","preference":"TIE","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has substantially stronger evidence for the underlying problem and a more straightforward experiment, but very close prior art leaves only a narrow comparative-format claim. A is more distinctive in targeting charitable reconstruction, assumptions, and interpretive diversity, yet that problem mechanism is only indirectly supported and the closest experiment supplies adverse participation evidence. These opposing strengths do not justify a directional choice."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B has stronger implementation and adopter evidence, a sharper contrast against coarse formal-philosophy result displays, and an especially bounded test of status-classification accuracy. A retains a plausible philosophy-specific increment, but its claimed premature-closure problem lacks direct evidence and its participation expectations face relevant counterevidence."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest candidate after scrutiny. Its underlying behavioral harm still needs confirmation and most technical elements are established in adjacent formal-reasoning systems, but the evidence identifies a real operational distinction, concrete philosophy-facing adopters, a defensible integrated contrastive claim, and a precise low-risk falsification study. It therefore offers a better balance of external distinctiveness and research value than the two seminar-silence proposals, whose core interventions are already established educational practices.","blinding_limitations":"The judgment is based only on the preserved proposals and supplied public-web scrutiny records. Source completeness, search execution, and reported source interpretations were not independently verified, and the scoring scale is treated as a five-point ordinal scale."}