{"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":4,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"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 well-supported problem with an excellent bounded test, but protected wait time and silent pre-discussion writing are already established in philosophy teaching. B also composes established technical primitives, yet its integrated philosophy-facing presentation and reader-calibration claim is more externally distinctive, sharply falsifiable, and feasible on archived records."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__A","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has stronger direct problem evidence, but its intervention closely reproduces established wait-time and quick-writing practice. A retains a somewhat more distinctive philosophy-specific claim about charitable reconstruction, assumption visibility, and interpretive diversity. Its adverse participation prior and indirect problem evidence narrow the advantage, but also make the proposed crossover informative."},{"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 a clearer operational failure mode, mature implementation primitives, identifiable archived substrates, a low-risk controlled study, and an explicit interpretation-accuracy falsifier. A is feasible and meaningful, but its central premature-closure diagnosis remains weakly evidenced and the closest experiment supplies adverse participation evidence."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest candidate after scrutiny. Its components are not novel, but the retained evidence leaves a credible domain-specific gap: whether an integrated, reason-labelled UNKNOWN presentation improves readers' discrimination among unresolved, refuted, malformed, and bounded-search outcomes. That claim has a concrete adopter path, high-quality standards and product evidence, a bounded archived-record experiment, and no fatal safety or feasibility issue.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. Source claims, search completeness, and the absence of closer unpublished or paywalled prior art were not independently verified, and no treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}