{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__accounting_auditing","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, observable rivalry, a scarce queue-position prize, eligibility, bounded conduct, audited scoring, appeals, anti-abuse controls, spillover responsibility, resource caps, temporary awards, reopening, recalibration, authority limits, falsifiers, and a reversible shadow test. It faithfully governs competition for close-review priority so substantive readiness becomes the route to winning."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully defines the audit-lead contest, protected noncontestable reporting duties, held-out replication, independent judging, due process, anti-collusion and foul controls, burden internalization, resource caps, temporary complementary awards, challenger access, review, safeguards, and falsifiers. It governs rivalry over assurance mandates rather than close-queue access."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Completely specifies a contest for one allocation standard, including conflicted-sponsor eligibility, legal modeling actions, reconciliation gates, blinded holdout scoring, appeals, manipulation and coordination controls, complexity caps, correction capacity, common infrastructure, annual reopening, impact review, and a bounded shadow tournament. Its causal focus is distributively motivated model selection."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Completely defines a scarce funding tender with traceable benefit identities, sealed entry, marginal portfolio scoring, independent verification, appeals, foul and collusion controls, preparation caps, lifecycle-cost responsibility, staged awards, challenger gates, retrospective review, authority boundaries, falsifiers, and a reversible reconstruction. It couples winning to nonduplicative portfolio contribution."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses business-unit manipulation of close-readiness signals to obtain scarce consolidation-review priority through an audited readiness queue; proposal 2 addresses auditors' finding production and evidence behavior in competition for lead mandates through a held-out assurance-hypothesis challenge."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs workflow priority where apparent readiness exports close rework; proposal 3 governs selection of a single cost-allocation rule where sponsor-controlled assumptions redistribute reported costs, using a blinded model tournament rather than queue scoring."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 ranks close packages for temporary review slots based on verified readiness; proposal 4 selects a transformation portfolio through a sealed tender that reconciles overlapping benefit claims and shared implementation constraints."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 tests reproducibility of control-risk hypotheses to allocate temporary audit leadership; proposal 3 tests competing allocation models on withheld periods to designate a temporary enterprise measurement standard."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 counters finding multiplication, severity inflation, and evidence hoarding in auditor career rivalry through replication; proposal 4 counters duplicate benefit claims and shifted lifecycle costs in project-funding rivalry through benefit-identity reconciliation and marginal portfolio selection."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 concerns distributively biased sponsorship of mutually exclusive cost-driver models and selects one standard by blinded holdout performance; proposal 4 concerns jointly unrealizable project benefits and selects several complementary investments by reconciling intersections and scoring marginal portfolio contribution."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's causal structure: each begins with consequential scarcity and strategic interdependence, bounds eligibility and conduct, aligns scoring with the intended contribution, supplies due process and anti-abuse enforcement, controls spillovers and escalation, limits winner entrenchment, and closes the learning loop. Although they reuse canonical governance mechanisms, they address four independently adoptable opportunities with different affected problems, interventions, evidence, prizes, and causal paths: close-review readiness, assurance-lead selection, cost-allocation model choice, and transformation-portfolio funding."}