{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__sociology_anthropology","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete: it specifies the approval wedge, protected ethics purpose, bounded envelope, authority, incidence, monitoring, rollback, falsifiers, and evidence step. The causal path is faithful: coarse prior review creates avoidable delay and foregone fieldwork, while trigger-based preauthorization preserves substantive protections."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it isolates stranded archive capacity caused by a stale assignment rule inside a legitimate cap, then uses readiness-based clearing with protected pools, monitoring, and rollback. It is distinct from approval streamlining, price redesign, bilateral matching, and permit-fee recalibration."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it identifies a binding administered compensation ceiling, preserves influence, classification, consent, and budget protections through targeted safeguards, and tests contextual bands within a bounded pilot. Its affected exchange and payment-rule intervention are distinct from the other proposals."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it diagnoses compatible but unrealized student-host pairings caused by fragmented sequential commitments, then applies mutual-preference batch clearing with eligibility screening, bilateral vetoes, a fallback round, monitoring, and expiry. This is a compatibility-matching repair rather than fungible capacity reallocation."},{"proposal_index":5,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it decomposes an authority-imposed permit charge, retains verified cost-recovery, scarcity, and externality components, and recalibrates only the avoidable portion through bounded tiers with fiscal and harm triggers. It is distinct from the compensation ceiling because payment direction, protected purpose, authority, and behavioral path differ."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 repairs undifferentiated prior ethics review through preauthorized adaptation envelopes; proposal 2 repairs dormant archive-capacity assignments through readiness checkpoints, protected pools, and reassignment."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 targets approval latency blocking time-sensitive method changes; proposal 3 targets an administered compensation ceiling blocking advisory labor and replaces it with burden-sensitive payment bands."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 reallocates ethics scrutiny between low-risk and substantive amendments; proposal 4 pools already-eligible students and hosts for mutual-preference matching and rematching."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 reduces procedural delay through bounded preauthorization; proposal 5 lowers only unjustified components of a municipal permit charge through purpose-decomposed fee tiers."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 releases stranded, already-authorized archive hours within a fixed cap; proposal 3 changes the permitted price paid for heterogeneous community-advisory tasks."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 reallocates fungible archive-service hours after readiness lapses; proposal 4 constructs bilateral matches among noninterchangeable students and hosts using mutual preferences and vetoes."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 repairs a stale quantity-allocation rule through periodic capacity clearing; proposal 5 repairs an excessive authority-imposed price wedge through charge decomposition and tiered recalibration."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses undercompensated advisory exchange through contextual payment bands; proposal 4 addresses sequencing-induced matching failure through pooled mutual-preference clearing."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 raises and differentiates payments made to advisers while directly preserving autonomy and classification safeguards; proposal 5 reduces and differentiates fees paid by event organizers while preserving cost recovery and externality controls."},{"proposal_a":4,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 4 repairs fragmented bilateral matching with simultaneous preference clearing; proposal 5 repairs deterrence from a coarse municipal charge with purpose-linked fee tiers."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All five proposals identify a specific avoidable wedge, distinguish it from legitimate protection or scarcity, specify a matched structural redesign, expose incidence and uncertainty, bound authority and implementation, monitor behavioral and protected-purpose outcomes, and provide rollback and falsification rules. Across all ten pairs, the affected problems, interventions, and causal paths are materially different: ethics-review latency, stale archive allocation, an advisory-compensation ceiling, fragmented practicum matching, and an excessive permit charge. The superficially closest pairs remain independent because archive clearing reallocates fungible capacity whereas practicum clearing constructs bilateral compatibility matches, and adviser compensation bands alter payments to labor suppliers whereas permit tiers recalibrate charges collected for public costs and externalities."}