{"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":2,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__C","supported_problem":3,"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}],"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":"Both are feasible, well-bounded variants of established reflective-wait practices, but A retains the more meaningful contrastive increment: philosophy-specific charitable reconstruction, assumption visibility, and interpretive diversity versus structured turn-taking. C has stronger support for its underlying participation problem, yet its single-question silent-writing intervention nearly reproduces established philosophy quick-writing and wait-time practices, leaving novelty concentrated in timing and measurement configuration."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B has closer technical prior art, but it identifies a distinct philosophy-facing integration and an unresolved behavioral question about whether reason-labelled UNKNOWN improves readers' classification of formal results. Its archived-record study is tightly bounded and supported by standards, implemented primitives, and identifiable adopters. A remains worthwhile, but its central pause-before-discussion lever is established practice and the closest experiment supplies adverse participation evidence."},{"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-documented classroom problem, but its intervention is substantially reproduced by decades-old wait-time research and existing silent pre-discussion writing in philosophy. B's components are also established, yet their integrated philosophy-facing presentation and effect on interpretation remain more externally distinctive, explicitly contrastive, and cleanly falsifiable."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest candidate after all three comparisons. It does not claim novelty for UNKNOWN states, reason codes, fragment restrictions, provenance, or replay; instead it isolates a credible remaining research question about their integrated presentation to readers of formal-philosophy results. The proposed controlled study has a clear falsifier, bounded non-live evidence step, plausible system-owner and logician authority path, strong implementation evidence, and no unresolved safety or feasibility stop. A ranks second because its reconstruction-focused outcomes preserve a narrower increment beyond generic think time. C ranks third because its core problem is supported but its intervention most closely duplicates established target-domain practice.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-scrutiny records. The searches were bounded public-web reviews, did not establish world novelty or prevalence, and supplied no direct replication, raw data, effect-size synthesis, adopter commitment, or independent source verification beyond the records. Scores therefore reflect comparative research value under the provided evidence rather than authoritative conclusions."}