{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__film_media_production","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, observables, rules, judging, safeguards, authority, rollback, falsifiers, and a pilot. It preserves the full governed-rivalry chain for rival documentary assemblies competing for one final-cut stewardship assignment."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a staged VFX tender, viable tranche awards, portable shared assets, secured spillovers, challenger access, review, authority, rollback, and tests. Its procurement and infrastructure-lock-in problem is distinct from creative-cut selection, rights licensing, and festival curation."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines an eligibility-gated sealed auction, bounded license, release floor, security, competition review, reversion, appeals, and tests. It faithfully governs monetary rivalry for one exclusive territorial right rather than purchasing services or judging creative entries."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines standardized submissions, campaign boundaries, randomized double screening, workload caps, conflicts, qualification thresholds, portfolio selection, audit, appeals, and review. It governs curatorial rivalry among completed films for several festival slots."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 corrects unequal inputs and strategic conduct in a creative comparison for one editing role through common-footage assemblies and blind rubric review; Proposal 2 corrects lowballing, labor spillovers, delivery risk, and technical lock-in in VFX procurement through tranche tenders, multiple awards, and portable infrastructure."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 compares rival editorial treatments to select a steward; Proposal 3 discovers a price for an exclusive territorial license while enforcing release performance through eligibility, security, bounded rights, and reversion."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 commissions alternative edits from common footage for one production assignment; Proposal 4 selects a portfolio of already completed films for multiple festival slots by restricting campaigns and governing screening access and slate composition."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 is a buyer-side, multi-award procurement of divisible VFX labor whose causal path depends on bid normalization, portfolio diversification, and production-controlled assets; Proposal 3 is a seller-side, single-winner auction of an exclusive license whose path depends on price discovery, exploitation duties, secured performance, and rights reversion."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs commercial vendors delivering interoperable production work through tenders and recurring tranches; Proposal 4 governs curatorial access and review for completed-film submissions through communications limits, randomized screening, thresholds, and portfolio judgment."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 allocates one contractual exploitation right by highest compliant monetary bid and controls warehousing through milestones and reversion; Proposal 4 allocates several edition-limited exhibition slots through nonprice qualification and slate complementarity while controlling lobbying and review inequality."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's essential causal structure: an explicit purpose and scarce prize, legitimate entrants, bounded actions, meaningful selection rules, due process, anti-abuse enforcement, spillover and escalation controls, winner-power limits, and recalibration. Although several reuse general guardrails such as monitoring and post-contest review, their affected problems, principal interventions, and causal paths are materially different and independently adoptable."}