{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology","judge_id":"J3","item_assessments":[{"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":3,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","supported_problem":4,"external_distinctiveness":2,"testability":5,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"pair_id":"B__C","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"Both retain only context-specific increments over close wait-time and facilitation practices. B has the cleaner remaining contrast—accessible cueing, silence-as-unknown semantics, fallback routes, and randomized distributional and experiential outcomes—and its evidence base more directly supports delayed response while providing a higher-confidence prior-art assessment. C's authority-only boundary is interesting, but an explicit existing eight-second rule and closely related community-dialogue practices leave less separation, while dominant-speaker capture remains a substantial mechanism risk."},{"pair_id":"B__A","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"A offers a worthwhile comparative implementation study, particularly through its round-robin arm, but scrutiny establishes protected silent reflection as existing practice in the same setting and removes most method distinctiveness. B also faces close prior art, yet preserves a narrower and more explicit incremental package with a real falsifier, strong safeguards, and a bounded prompt-randomized pilot tied directly to consultation-record outcomes."},{"pair_id":"C__A","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C retains a specific untested contrast—an 8–12-second authority-only open floor with voluntary response routes and status-sensitive outcomes—despite substantial adjacent prior art. A's 45-second interval is readily researchable but is more plainly an effectiveness comparison among established facilitation structures. C is therefore more externally distinctive, although its direct eight-second analogue and risk of dominant-speaker capture keep the advantage modest."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest candidate after scrutiny because it combines a partly supported, meaningful problem with the clearest surviving incremental claim, high-quality cross-setting evidence, identifiable meeting authorities, an unusually bounded randomized pilot, explicit empirical and harm falsifiers, and reversible safety provisions. Its core wait-time mechanism is not novel, so its research value is moderate rather than transformative; nevertheless, the accessible cue, silence-as-unknown rule, fallback routing, and consultation-record distribution outcomes form a more coherent and defensible research increment than the alternatives.","blinding_limitations":"The records are highly similar and use overlapping sources, settings, outcomes, and intervention timings, so small differences in wording and search yield may overstate substantive separation. The bounded web searches cannot establish world novelty, routine prevalence, or publication completeness, and no proposal has direct causal evidence from the exact community-consultation setting."}