{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__astronomy_astrophysics","considered_ids":["H1","H2","H4"],"selected_id":"H1","dispositions":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","lane":"FINALIST","reason":"Despite substantial component-level collision, the residual is a narrow and falsifiable mechanism: accepted teams spend forecast-contention-priced credits by resource and condition, with protected-access endowments and automatic restoration for undelivered observations. Direct sources establish the recognizable allocation problem and each nearby practice while preserving this material, testable distinction."},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","lane":"RESEARCH","reason":"The remaining claim bundles project interpretation, cross-archive ranking, coverage, calibration, rights, compute burden, and a causal observing-hour outcome. Its components substantially collide with existing proposal checks, archive infrastructure, standards, and dataset recommendation, leaving an integration claim too broad for finalist selection."},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","lane":"COLLISION","reason":"Publication-conditioned release, automatic release workflows, variable proprietary periods, justified extensions, inactivity actions, and monitoring are already established across closely related policies and repositories. The residual astronomy-specific integration is identifiable but predominantly an exact-bundle distinction rather than a sufficiently differentiated treatment opportunity."}],"selection_reason":"H1 offers the clearest bounded treatment contrast tied directly to scarcity and allocative deadweight loss. Its surviving claim is more operationally precise and readily falsifiable than H2's broad recommender integration or H4's heavily collided governance bundle."}