{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__environmental_climate","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines a genuine scarce funding rivalry among hydrologically connected applicants and operationalizes purpose, eligibility, bounded conduct, portfolio scoring, due process, spillover liability, anti-abuse controls, concentration limits, and recalibration. Its problem and causal path are specific to project-local scoring and basin-wide flood-risk transfer."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines a scarce operational-model selection contest and directly governs benchmark gaming, compute escalation, correlated errors, and incumbent lock-in through sealed tests, reproducibility audits, resource caps, complementary ensemble selection, challenger rounds, and realized-season review."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines rivalry over physically scarce, legally contestable drought water after protecting noncontestable floors. Expiring net-consumption lots, sealed bidding, externality adjustments, holding caps, monitoring, appeals, secured responsibility, and ecological recalibration form a complete bounded-auction intervention."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines an ecological rivalry and selection arena for scarce trial and deployment space, consistent with the archetype's ecological-competition variant. Equalized starting resources, randomized mixed and isolated trials, bounded scoring, audits, containment, portfolio advancement, share caps, challenger cohorts, and post-stage review prevent propagule pressure and early dominance from determining selection."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs jurisdictions competing for adaptation capital where local projects can transfer basin flood risk; Proposal 2 governs model teams competing for operational forecast status where public benchmarks and compute produce overfitting and correlated forecast failure."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 uses audited portfolio grant selection to assemble complementary infrastructure projects; Proposal 3 uses recurring externality-adjusted auctions to allocate temporary physical withdrawal capacity after ecological and rights-based floors are removed from competition."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses strategic grant applications and cross-jurisdictional flood spillovers; Proposal 4 addresses biological suppression and propagule-pressure bias through contained, equalized ecological trials and bounded seed-source deployment shares."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 selects reproducible forecast models using sealed performance tests and complementary error structure; Proposal 3 allocates consumptive river use through bids, hydrologic externality charges, expiring lots, and hard protected floors."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 counters strategic benchmark adaptation and computational arms races among model teams; Proposal 4 counters density-driven biological dominance and premature ecological selection using randomized living trials, equalized inputs, and containment."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 governs strategic economic rivalry among water users for a flow resource via an auction; Proposal 4 governs ecological competition among seed-source cohorts for establishment and later planting shares via controlled experiments without pricing or trading."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally specified, preserve the archetype's causal spine of scarce prize, rival entrants, bounded winning strategies, meaningful scoring, fair process, abuse and spillover controls, lock-in protection, and recalibration, and identify safe first evidence steps and falsifiers. Their affected problems, primary interventions, and causal paths are independently adoptable: basin adaptation funding, operational forecast-model selection, drought-water allocation, and forest seed-source selection."}