{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__chemistry_materials","portfolio_valid":false,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and strongly faithful: it defines a genuinely scarce pilot slot, eligibility, bounded actions, audited scoring, due process, anti-abuse controls, spillover accounting, resource caps, reopening, and recalibration. It establishes the immutable baseline intervention."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful as governed supplier rivalry over a solvent-recovery contract. Full-basket reverse bidding, secured residual liability, delivery verification, portfolio contracting, transferable infrastructure, and reopening provide a distinct opportunity relative to proposals 1 and 3, although proposal 4 later repeats its auction-centered intervention family."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":false,"reason":"Complete and faithful, but not materially independent of proposal 1. Both use essentially the same bounded scientific bake-off: coded common specimens, equal support or resource caps, multidimensional ranking, withheld validation, conditional runner-up coverage, expiring status, and challenger reopening. Changing the contested output from a material scale-up slot to reference-method designation changes the application but not the core intervention or causal path."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":false,"reason":"Complete and faithful, including a protected noncontestable safety reserve and operator override. However, it substantially repeats proposal 2's governed-auction intervention: qualified sealed bidding over standardized bundles, portfolio allocation, secured externality costs, reconciliation, anti-collusion screens, concentration controls, expiring access, and reopening. Forward capacity allocation versus reverse service procurement changes market direction and implementation, but not the core intervention sufficiently for independence."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 corrects gaming in experimental selection through a blinded, resource-capped performance contest; proposal 2 corrects incomplete service pricing and contractor foreclosure through a governed reverse procurement auction with full-stream obligations and secured liability."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":true,"independent_opportunity":false,"key_difference":"The prizes differ—pilot-scale access for a material versus institutional reference status for a method—but both rely on the same coded interlaboratory bake-off, capped sponsor resources, composite scoring, held-out audit, expiring award, and challenger pathway."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 selects a research candidate through comparative scientific validation; proposal 4 allocates recurring physical treatment headroom through sealed value bids and constraint-feasible portfolio clearing."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs commercial price competition for hazardous-material services and verifies contracted delivery; proposal 3 governs epistemic competition for a standard by experimentally comparing method transferability."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":true,"independent_opportunity":false,"key_difference":"One is a reverse auction among service suppliers and the other a forward auction among facility users, but both govern standardized sealed bids through eligibility, portfolio awards, externality security, reconciliation, anti-collusion monitoring, concentration limits, expiration, and reopening."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 selects an analytical reference method through blinded comparative testing; proposal 4 allocates time- and composition-dependent wastewater capacity through constrained portfolio bidding and metered settlement."}],"replacement_indices":[3,4],"rationale":"Every proposal is operationally complete and causally faithful, but the portfolio contains two intervention-level duplications. Proposal 3 is a domain-renamed variant of proposal 1's governed scientific benchmark contest, and proposal 4 is a market-direction variant of proposal 2's governed sealed auction. Because independent opportunities must differ in problem, intervention, and causal path—not merely prize type, population, or implementation detail—the four are not mutually independent. Replace the later members of the duplicate pairs while preserving immutable proposal 1 and the earlier distinct proposal 2."}