{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__chemistry_materials","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the scarce pilot slot, eligible teams, bounded actions, capped inputs, reproducibility-based scoring, independent validation, due process, anti-abuse enforcement, spillover accounting, reopening, and review. Its causal core is a governed comparative scale-up contest."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a scarce service award, bidder eligibility, normalized sealed bids, mandatory stream coverage, delivery verification, secured externalities, anti-collusion controls, portfolio contracting, successor access, protests, and recalibration. Its causal core is governed reverse procurement, not scientific selection."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally governs continuous rivalry for buyer attention and orders through lot passports, shipment-linked samples, buyer-defined filters, transparent bounded promotion, transaction reserves, disputes, anti-abuse controls, portability, challenger exposure, and platform-power review. It preserves rivalry without a central winner or auction."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines scarce priority, credit, and integration roles; eligible competitors; modular thresholds; confidential timestamps; near-simultaneous credit sharing; resource caps; safety and foul boundaries; appeals; nonexclusive access; challenger entry; and post-phase review. It governs a research-priority race rather than selecting a material, vendor, or product lot."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 corrects irreproducible scientific selection for a pilot-line slot through a capped, audited performance tournament; proposal 2 corrects incomplete pricing, cost dumping, collusion, and supplier lock-in through a governed reverse auction and portfolio service contract."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 centrally ranks experimental films for one scale-up award; proposal 3 governs repeated marketplace transactions by tying each shipped lot to its own claims, remedies, and visibility rules while leaving selection to heterogeneous buyers."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses metric gaming and resource escalation in comparative pilot selection; proposal 4 addresses secrecy, hazardous priority racing, fragmented attribution, and blocking control through confidential timestamps, modular threshold credit, shared near-simultaneous rewards, and nonexclusive access."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 allocates defined solvent-service volume through sealed normalized bids and contract lots; proposal 3 has no solicitation or central award and instead governs lot-specific truthfulness, transaction liability, reputation, promotion, and platform access in an ongoing market."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 disciplines commercial suppliers competing on price for a service contract; proposal 4 disciplines consortium researchers competing for priority and contribution credit through registry deposits, verification thresholds, disclosure, and modular access rules."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses seller claim fidelity, rejection costs, attention capture, and marketplace foreclosure at the transaction level; proposal 4 addresses research withholding, duplicative acceleration, attribution conflict, and enabling-module veto power before commercialization."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's essential causal structure: each identifies meaningful scarcity and strategic rivalry, defines legitimate entry and winning conduct, constrains abuse and spillovers, supplies fair process, limits escalation or lock-in, and closes a recalibration loop. The six pairs differ jointly in affected problem, intervention, and causal path: scientific tournament selection, reverse service procurement, continuous transaction marketplace governance, and modular research-priority governance are independently adoptable opportunities rather than renamed variants or feature additions."}