{"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":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":3,"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_vs_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 practice in the same setting, leaving mainly a duration-and-comparator evaluation. B also faces close prior art, but retains a more sharply bounded public-consultation claim and is supported by causal wait-time evidence from multiple adjacent empirical settings, explicit harm outcomes, and a readily randomized pilot."},{"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":"C preserves a clearer incremental contrast—an authority-only open-entry interval with status-sensitive outcomes—whereas A substantially reproduces established community-meeting and silent-reflection practice. C's requirement to verify baseline crowding before intervention also makes the evidence step more diagnostic and worthwhile."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_C","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both are bounded, falsifiable evaluations of closely adjacent practice. B has the slight advantage because its evidence base includes multiple empirical wait-time analogues, its randomized prompt-level comparison is especially clean, and its outcomes jointly test entry distribution, participant interpretation, accessibility, and operational cost. C offers a meaningful authority-only boundary and stronger baseline verification, but its exact timing is especially close to an existing eight-second rule and its evidence is less directly causal."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest research candidate after scrutiny, though its method is not broadly novel. It combines a supported interactional problem, a specific incremental claim distinguishable from generic wait-time practice, a real null result and harm-based falsifier, a low-stakes randomized evidence step, identifiable adopters, and the strongest triangulation of primary research with setting-relevant and official guidance. Its value lies in comparative effectiveness and safety evidence for public consultation, not invention of facilitated silence.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment uses only the preserved records supplied here and does not infer treatment identity. All three proposals are unusually similar in setting, lever, pilot scale, outcomes, and cited prior art, so distinctions—especially between B and C—depend on modest differences in causal evidence, protocol boundary, and diagnostic design rather than clearly separate research programs."}