{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__aviation_aeronautics","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the scarce departure-priority prize, verified eligibility, permitted and prohibited conduct, capped bidding, safety overrides, readiness liability, anti-collusion referral, appeals, repeated reopening, observables, falsifiers, and a read-only test. Its causal path directly recouples winning to executable urgency while suppressing queue occupation and false readiness."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully defines a safety-gated competition for scarce controller-validation slots, including held-out scoring, resource caps, independent reproduction, portfolio advancement, fouls, appeals, challenger access, downstream validation, falsifiers, and an offline first step. The arena makes robust unseen-condition performance—not visible-benchmark tuning or expenditure—the route to advancement."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Provides a complete recurring repair-volume arena with qualified entrants, matched case allocation, noncompensable compliance gates, delayed field-outcome scoring, warranty security, capped demonstrations, collusion controls, portfolio work share, appeals, reopening, falsifiers, and retrospective evaluation. It recouples supplier success to lifecycle repair contribution rather than quoted bid performance."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Completely specifies an interoperability-bounded gateway contest with bidder-independent interface rules, eligibility gates, blinded bench testing, capped support, separated implementation and conformance awards, migration security, competition review, appeals, challenger windows, falsifiers, and an isolated bench test. It governs both immediate rivalry and the winner's ability to capture future rivalry."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses strategic readiness and taxi-queue occupation in operational departure sequencing through recurring capped priority-credit nominations; Proposal 2 addresses benchmark overfitting and resource escalation in controller development through hidden-condition, safety-gated portfolio downselection."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 allocates time-critical departure opportunities among airlines and removes physical queue gaming; Proposal 3 allocates recurring repair volume among maintenance shops using matched cohorts, mature reliability outcomes, warranty reserves, and portfolio sourcing."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs short-horizon airline priority rivalry during capacity recovery; Proposal 4 governs a fleet gateway procurement whose winner could capture interfaces and future entry, using interoperability floors, independent conformance ownership, migration testing, and winner-power review."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 selects flight-control candidates under uncertain simulated conditions and counters benchmark specialization with hidden tests and validation slots; Proposal 3 governs commercial repair suppliers based on matched serial-level field reliability and recurring work-share reallocation."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 seeks robust control designs and prevents premature architectural concentration through safety-gated hidden evaluation; Proposal 4 seeks a replaceable health-data gateway and prevents platform capture through open interfaces, separate conformance governance, migration obligations, and competition review."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 counters repair suppliers' ability to externalize delayed reliability and documentation costs through outcome holdbacks, matched cohorts, and warranty reserves; Proposal 4 counters an integration winner's control of data formats, tooling, and future entrants through interoperability testing, divided infrastructure ownership, and secured portability."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's essential causal structure: each identifies a purposeful rivalry over a scarce prize, legitimate entrants and actions, meaningful scoring, due process, anti-abuse controls, spillover treatment, escalation or concentration safeguards, and recalibration. The six pairwise comparisons show distinct affected problems, interventions, and causal paths across airport operations, controller development, component maintenance sourcing, and avionics-platform contestability. Shared governance mechanisms are archetype invariants rather than evidence of duplication."}