{"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":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":3,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"A__B","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A's core intervention is already explicit community-meeting practice, including post-question silence and timed silent reflection. B also overlaps prior art, but retains a sharper bounded evaluation claim combining an accessible eight-second cue, silence-as-unknown semantics, fallback routes, randomized prompts, and distributional and experiential outcomes. Its evidence base also includes primary wait-time studies that make the pilot especially tractable."},{"pair_id":"A__C","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"C is more distinctive because it limits the intervention specifically to facilitator and sponsor re-entry while leaving voluntary participant entry and clarification routes open, and conditions testing on verified baseline crowding. A chiefly evaluates a declared version of an already established protected-silence practice. Both are falsifiable and safe enough for a pilot, but C preserves a more consequential authority-specific uncertainty."},{"pair_id":"B__C","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B has somewhat stronger adjacent causal evidence, but its general facilitator-speech-free wait-time claim lies especially close to long-standing wait-time research and direct facilitation guidance. C's authority-only boundary, role-coded outcomes, baseline-verification gate, and focus on institutional status crowding define a more externally distinctive test. The advantage is moderate because every core element of C also has close practice analogues and its direct problem evidence remains partial."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","overall_rationale":"C is the best research candidate after scrutiny. It does not claim novelty for silence itself; instead, it isolates whether briefly preventing authority-holder re-entry changes role-distribution, first-time participation, and distinct-perspective yield in consultations where baseline crowding has first been verified. The claim has a real falsifier, a reversible four-meeting test, identifiable authorizers, and explicit safety, access, and context-preservation boundaries. Its evidence is less directly causal than B's adjacent wait-time literature, but the unresolved authority-specific effect is more distinctive and socially meaningful.","blinding_limitations":"Assessment is limited to the supplied preserved records and their bounded public-web summaries. Sources were not independently reopened, adoption prevalence and jurisdiction-specific authority were not established, and substantial source and intervention overlap makes the B-versus-C distinction necessarily moderate rather than decisive."}