{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology","judge_id":"J1","item_assessments":[{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":5,"researchability":5,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A_vs_B","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both address a meaningful but only partly demonstrated latency mechanism. A's core intervention is directly established in community-meeting guidance and timed silent-reflection methods, leaving mainly a duration-and-comparator evaluation. B also has close prior art, but retains a somewhat sharper incremental package: a facilitator-speech-free interval, explicit silence-as-unknown semantics, accessible fallback routes, randomized prompts, and distributional and experiential falsifiers."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"A is feasible and testable, but its protected reflection interval closely reproduces established facilitation practice. C narrows the intervention to authority-holder re-entry, requires baseline verification of crowding, and measures role distribution and distinct-perspective yield. That authority-specific contrast and diagnostic gate make C the more distinctive and efficient research candidate despite equally close generic wait-time prior art."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"LOW","rationale":"The proposals are very close and both support bounded, reversible tests. B has stronger adjacent causal evidence for wait time, but C better isolates the sociological mechanism by restricting facilitator and sponsor re-entry, grounding the concern in community power and silence research, and conditioning the pilot on observed authority crowding. Its role-coded outcomes and baseline gate slightly improve interpretability, though the documented eight-second practice makes the distinctiveness advantage small."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest candidate by a narrow margin. It does not claim novelty for silence itself; it advances an explicit, falsifiable claim about an authority-only open-entry interval in consultations with verified crowding. The adopter path is credible, the four-meeting step is bounded and reversible, and the measures connect directly to status concentration and perspective loss. Close prior art limits novelty, but no supplied source evaluates the complete authority boundary, voluntary channels, safeguards, and status-sensitive outcomes. No fatal safety or feasibility issue remains under the stated exclusions and rollback rules.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment used only the supplied preserved records and scrutiny summaries. Sources were not independently reopened, search completeness and coding accuracy could not be verified, and substantial overlap among the three proposals makes small distinctions sensitive to how each bounded search happened to characterize prior art. No treatment identity or earlier outcome was inferred."}