{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology","judge_id":"J2","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":5,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":4,"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 offer safe, bounded comparative pilots, but A's core intervention is directly established in community-meeting guidance and timed-reflection practice. B retains a somewhat clearer incremental package and stronger adjacent causal evidence for response waiting, while specifying randomized prompts, explicit silence-as-unknown semantics, accessible cues, fallback routes, and measurable harms."},{"pair_id":"A_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A is mainly an effectiveness comparison of an already established facilitation practice. C isolates a narrower authority boundary—officials and facilitators cannot re-enter while participants retain voluntary response routes—and conditions testing on verified baseline crowding, leaving a more distinctive and diagnostically useful causal claim."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","preference":"RIGHT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"B has slightly stronger adjacent wait-time evidence, but its distinctiveness relies substantially on safeguards bundled around familiar facilitator silence. C more sharply contrasts ordinary facilitation with an authority-only speech restriction, requires baseline verification of the proposed mechanism, and measures role distribution and perspective yield; this makes the result more informative about status crowding rather than generic response latency."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","overall_rationale":"C is the strongest research candidate because it converts a familiar pause practice into the clearest contrastive institutional claim: a short, voluntary open floor that selectively restrains authority-holder re-entry. Its baseline verification, within-meeting comparison, role-sensitive outcomes, participant-meaning checks, and rollback rules provide a bounded falsification path. Prior art remains close and the exact causal problem is only partly supported, so its value is moderate and evaluative rather than method novelty.","blinding_limitations":"The records are highly similar and draw on overlapping evidence, making distinctions necessarily incremental. The searches were bounded rather than systematic, source sets differed across proposals, and none supplied direct causal evidence from the exact community-consultation protocol. Scores use a five-point ordinal interpretation because the schema specifies integers but no explicit scale."}