{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__criminology_forensic","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the rival teams, scarce development resources, controlled arena, multidimensional scoring, due process, anti-abuse controls, spillover quarantine, resource caps, portfolio awards, recalibration, authority limits, rollback, falsifiers, and a reversible test. Its causal structure faithfully redirects laboratory rivalry from concealing errors toward verified error discovery and safe disclosure."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully defines a vendor procurement contest with scarce leases, eligibility, independent sealed testing, balanced scoring, protests, collusion controls, externality security, portability, divided awards, challenger entry, and post-lease review. It faithfully governs both pre-award rivalry and winner lock-in, and is not a laboratory-quality contest."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully specifies rival hypothesis teams, scarce validation slots, common evidence access, preregistration, bounded actions, rights-adjusted scoring, appeals, anti-sabotage rules, resource caps, plural advancement, reopening, and outcome review. It faithfully converts informal theory rivalry into a governed resource-triage arena without treating advancement as truth or legal authority."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully defines district-community competitors, marginal prevention prizes, a protected service floor, registered actions, audited net-harm scoring, due process, anti-gaming rules, cross-boundary externality accounting, resource caps, portfolio awards, and recalibration. It faithfully redirects geographic performance rivalry from recorded-crime manipulation toward verified regional harm reduction."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses laboratories concealing weaknesses to protect standing through a synthetic defect-discovery league; Proposal 2 addresses vendors winning procurement through tailored demonstrations and lock-in through independently operated benchmarks, portability obligations, and contestable leases."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 changes incentives for institutional error reporting and corrective learning; Proposal 3 governs competition among case hypotheses for analytical resources through equal evidence access, preregistered predictions, and limited validation slots."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 targets forensic-team incentives to suppress or narrowly classify errors; Proposal 4 targets district gaming and export of public-safety harms through boundary-adjusted scoring, reporting-integrity audits, and an externality reserve."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs commercial tool vendors competing for deployment leases and prevents technological lock-in; Proposal 3 governs investigative explanations competing for case-review resources and prevents theory dominance through prediction-based staged validation."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 is a product-selection and interoperability contest using sealed technical benchmarks and challenger procurement; Proposal 4 is a prevention-funding contest using aggregate regional outcomes, protected reporting, spillover attribution, and delayed award liability."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 allocates within-case analytical capacity among competing causal hypotheses based on falsifiable predictions; Proposal 4 allocates municipal continuation support among geographic prevention partnerships based on audited net harm and cross-boundary externalities."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's essential causal structure: an explicit purpose and scarce prize, legitimate rivals, bounded actions, purpose-linked scoring, fair process, anti-abuse enforcement, spillover control, escalation dampers, winner-power limits, and recalibration. Every pair differs materially in the affected problem, intervention, and causal path, and each opportunity can be adopted without implementing another proposal."}