{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, claim-level lifecycle states, review leases, dependency and retention checks, differentiated disposition, reversible quarantine, audit markers, tested restoration, authority, falsifiers, and a bounded evaluation. It faithfully manages accumulated clinical hypotheses whose active validity changes while preserving reasoning lineage."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies participant authority, an active-slot budget, commitment metadata, lease and capacity triggers, dependency gates, exceptions, reversible disposition, restoration, risks, and testing. It faithfully bounds accumulated behavioral commitments without destroying strategy history and is distinct from managing clinical claims."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies immutable norm-package identity, expiring review authority, context-sensitive scoring gates, inbound dependency tracing, storage tiers, quarantine, markers, restoration tests, governance, and falsifiers. It faithfully retires stale calibration layers from prospective use while preserving exact reproducibility."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies pseudonymous exposure layers, ethics-approved review leases, protocol-specific reassessment, minimal screening disclosure, restricted retention, dependency protection, quarantine, markers, restoration, authority, and bounded testing. It faithfully limits stale exposure records' eligibility authority without assuming memory decay or erasing protected dependencies."},{"proposal_index":5,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies separately identified exception layers, triggers, leases, context-matched run-sheet compilation, authorization rules, dependency checks, differentiated disposition, batch manifests, rollback, archival reconstruction, falsifiers, and testing. It faithfully sunsets obsolete procedural exceptions while preserving the procedure that generated historical data."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 prevents stale clinician-authored hypotheses from retaining interpretive authority in patient care through a formulation leasebook; proposal 2 bounds participant-owned commitments competing for cueing attention through an active-slot sunset ledger."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs patient-specific inferential claims and clinical reasoning visibility; proposal 3 governs shared psychometric calibration packages and prospective scoring authorization through a context-sensitive gate."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses stale hypotheses within longitudinal care; proposal 4 addresses prior research exposures that may unjustifiably or unsafely govern later study eligibility through protocol-specific reassessment."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs the lifecycle of clinical interpretations about a patient; proposal 5 governs conditional experimental procedure rules and compiles the authorized rule stack for each session."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 manages personal commitments and reminder capacity under participant control; proposal 3 manages institutional scoring assets and blocks use of context-mismatched norm packages under psychometric authority."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 reduces conflict among a participant's operative behavior-change plans; proposal 4 governs sensitive research-exposure records and their temporary effect on protocol eligibility."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 uses capacity-triggered demotion to keep an individual's active commitment portfolio enactable; proposal 5 uses context-triggered compilation and authorized sunset to keep laboratory procedures consistent."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 controls executable norm packages used to transform psychological measurements; proposal 4 controls person-linked prior-exposure records used to make enrollment decisions."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 gates which calibration layer may score an observation; proposal 5 compiles which approved procedural exceptions govern generation of the observation, with different assets, authorities, and downstream effects."},{"proposal_a":4,"proposal_b":5,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 4 manages participant-linked exposure histories so screening holds receive protocol-specific reassessment; proposal 5 manages protocol-linked operational exceptions so obsolete rules stop shaping sessions while historical batches remain reconstructable."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All five proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's essential causal structure: sequentially accumulated layers receive explicit identity, age or review triggers, lifecycle states, dependency and exception checks, differentiated retirement paths, and reconstruction-preserving evidence. The affected objects and decisions are materially different across the portfolio—clinical hypotheses, personal commitments, psychometric norms, participation exposures, and experimental procedure exceptions—and each uses a distinct intervention and causal route to a distinct outcome. All ten pairs therefore constitute independent opportunities, so no replacement is required."}