{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__film_media_production","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and archetype-faithful: it specifies the unrestricted executable-package class, a reviewed halting reduction, an enforceable finite-state fragment, exact and one-sided fallbacks, explicit non-Boolean states, authority, rollback, falsifiers, and bounded evidence. Its affected problem and intervention are universal session completion and asset-compliance preflight."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it tests unrestricted render-graph equivalence through an explicit reduction, confines exact approval to a total render-expression fragment with checked certificates, and separates certified equivalence, bounded agreement, witnessed difference, and unknown. Its proof-carrying substitution gate is materially distinct from behavioral preflight."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it maps halting to existence of a satisfying cut, distinguishes positive witness recognition from negative bounded exhaustion, and specifies fair dovetailing, coverage certificates, explicit UNKNOWN, authority, rollback, falsifiers, and a bounded pilot. It addresses existential editorial synthesis rather than verification or equivalence."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it uses a model-specific diagonal argument against unrestricted shortest-description computation, then offers exhaustive finite-space minimality certificates and weaker reproduction or best-found labels. Its preservation-package minimality problem and diagonal causal path are distinct from the reduction-based decision problems elsewhere."},{"proposal_index":5,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it maps computation into recursive canon entailment, reserves exact three-way classification for an enforceable finite acyclic fragment, and uses checked one-sided proofs plus UNKNOWN for unrestricted theories. It includes semantic assumptions, authority, rollback, falsifiers, and bounded evidence and is distinct as continuity reasoning."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 verifies universal termination and cleared-asset behavior across interactive viewing traces using finite-state model checking and sound abstraction; proposal 2 authorizes render-graph substitutions through equivalence certificates in a restricted transformation calculus."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 asks whether all executions of an authored interactive package are compliant; proposal 3 asks whether any cut satisfying an editorial brief exists, using bounded exhaustive synthesis and open one-sided witness search."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs behavioral release preflight for executable works; proposal 4 governs shortest exact procedural representations for mastering or preservation through diagonal impossibility analysis and bounded minimality certificates."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 analyzes execution traces for completion and asset compliance; proposal 5 analyzes logical entailment in recursive story canon through finite-model classification and proof-backed reasoning."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 decides whether two render computations preserve every output and uses proof-carrying rewrites; proposal 3 searches for one constraint-conforming edit and permits negative conclusions only after complete bounded enumeration."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 concerns semantic equality between an original and replacement render graph; proposal 4 concerns global size minimality of an exact reconstruction program, with a diagonal rather than equivalence-reduction causal argument."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 uses checked transformation certificates to approve post-production graph substitution; proposal 5 uses derivation proofs and finite models to classify serialized-canon propositions."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 is an existential editorial-feasibility service whose positive evidence is a satisfying cut; proposal 4 is a preservation optimizer whose bounded evidence certifies the smallest exact package in a finite decoder space."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 searches a space of candidate edits for a satisfying witness; proposal 5 determines consequences of a formal canon theory through finite evaluation or one-sided proof discovery."},{"proposal_a":4,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 4 draws a diagonal boundary around unrestricted minimum-description computation and certifies bounded package minima; proposal 5 draws a reduction-based boundary around recursive entailment and returns checked proofs, exact finite openness, or UNKNOWN."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All five proposals are operationally specified, preserve the archetype's model-relative computability analysis, avoid treating timeout or failed search as a verdict, define enforceable decidable regions, expose honest fallback states, and include governance and evidence plans. Although they share the required boundary-mapping pattern, they target five different production decisions with materially different interventions and causal paths: universal interactive-session verification, render-substitution equivalence, existential cut synthesis, procedural-package minimality, and recursive canon entailment. All ten pairs therefore constitute independent opportunities."}