{"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":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":2,"testability":4,"researchability":4,"evidence_quality":4,"fatal_issue":null},{"opaque_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","supported_problem":3,"external_distinctiveness":1,"testability":4,"researchability":3,"evidence_quality":3,"fatal_issue":null}],"pairwise_comparisons":[{"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 propose closely related bounded facilitator silence and face substantial adjacent prior art. B retains a somewhat clearer incremental package—accessible cueing, explicit silence-as-unknown semantics, fallback routing, and randomized prompt-level measurement—and its evidence includes stronger direct wait-time findings. C is still researchable, but the exact eight-second rule and several combined restraint-and-silence practices are already documented, narrowing its external distinctiveness."},{"pair_id":"B_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"HIGH","rationale":"B offers a more narrowly bounded and context-specific incremental claim with a strong falsifier and feasible four-meeting test. A's core protected-reflection method is established practice, including timed silent reflection, leaving mainly an implementation-effectiveness comparison; its 45-second interval also introduces a larger intervention change without stronger direct evidence."},{"pair_id":"C_vs_A","left_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__C","right_id":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__A","preference":"LEFT","confidence":"MODERATE","rationale":"C's authority-only open-floor boundary and status-coded outcomes preserve a more specific unresolved causal question than A's established silent-reflection practice. Both have credible adopters, safeguards, and bounded pilots, but C more directly isolates facilitator and official re-entry while A bundles a longer pause into a comparison with round-robin."}],"overall_top_choice":"negative_space_design__sociology_anthropology__B","overall_rationale":"B is the strongest candidate after scrutiny because the problem is meaningfully but only partly supported, the remaining claim is explicit and genuinely falsifiable, and the pilot is bounded, reversible, accessible, and tied to identifiable authorities. Its mechanism is not novel in itself, but its context-specific configuration and distributional evaluation retain more research value than C's more closely collided eight-second practice or A's established silent-reflection method.","blinding_limitations":"The assessment used only the supplied preserved proposals and external-evaluation records. The three candidates are highly overlapping, source sets differ, and the bounded searches cannot establish world novelty, routine prevalence, or comparative evidentiary completeness."}