{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy","judge_id":"J2","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"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}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C has stronger evidence for short waits, facilitator refilling, and concentrated participation, but its intervention substantially reproduces established wait-time and pre-discussion quick-writing practice in philosophy. A retains a more distinctive incremental question about charitable reconstruction, assumption visibility, and interpretive diversity, with explicit semantic and safety framing. Its adverse Think-Share evidence also makes the proposed crossover genuinely informative rather than merely confirmatory."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both have meaningful but incompletely demonstrated behavioral problems. A's central pause-before-discussion lever is already established and has direct adverse participation evidence. B's technical components are likewise established, but their integrated philosophy-facing interpretation claim is less directly reproduced by the located prior art. Its archived-record reader study is tightly bounded, readily falsifiable, and supported by unusually authoritative standards and product documentation."},{"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 better-supported problem, but philosophy-specific silent quick writing for participation and idea formation is already documented practice; the remaining exact-duration and no-pair comparison is relatively narrow and configuration-dependent. B preserves a clearer externally distinctive research increment: whether an integrated, reason-labelled UNKNOWN presentation improves readers' discrimination among unresolved, refuted, malformed, and resource-bounded results. The proposed non-live study has a credible adopter path, objective endpoint, and low rollback cost."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny. It does not claim novelty for UNKNOWN states, fragment restrictions, provenance, or replay; instead it isolates a domain-specific, contrastive behavioral claim that existing standards and systems do not appear to have tested. The operational substrate and adopter path are credible, the evidence base is authoritative, and the proposed archived-record experiment can decisively falsify the claimed interpretation benefit with limited safety exposure. Its main weakness is that actual false-closure harm among philosophy users remains unmeasured, so the pilot should be treated as validation of the problem as well as the intervention.","blinding_limitations":"The records differ substantially in domain, outcome type, and source mix, so evidence strength is not perfectly commensurable. Public-web searches were bounded and cannot establish world novelty or prevalence. Scores use a five-point ordinal scale and assess the supplied records only; no treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}