{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__futurism_foresight","portfolio_valid":false,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and strongly faithful: it specifies a scarce rehearsal prize, eligible rivals, bounded conduct, meaningful audited scoring, portfolio selection, due process, anti-abuse controls, spillover protections, escalation limits, challenger access, and recalibration."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful. Its central intervention is structural contestability repair: move essential forecasting infrastructure outside the arena, maintain production and funded challenger lanes, secure transition, and periodically test displacement. This differs materially from governing submissions for attention or designation."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful. Equal nontransferable escalation warrants and confidential priority registration directly govern queue flooding and priority-credit rivalry over scarce verification capacity, with protected noncontestable reporting channels and a distinct capped-nomination causal path."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":false,"reason":"Individually complete and faithful, but not materially independent of proposal 1. Both use substantially the same intervention and causal path: freeze rules for rival foresight submissions, mask identities, cap resources, apply composite scoring plus hidden tests and audits, choose a bounded portfolio of recognized futures, provide appeals, and reopen or recalibrate later. Paired rebuttal, a central-case label, and utility-specific stakeholders are added features and domain implementation details rather than a distinct intervention."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 corrects gaming and redundancy in allocating rehearsal slots; proposal 2 corrects incumbent infrastructure control and switching lock-in through a protected common layer and operational challenger lane."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 selects developed scenarios for scarce rehearsals through audited portfolio competition; proposal 3 limits upstream weak-signal queue flooding through nontransferable nomination warrants and confidential priority registration."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":true,"independent_opportunity":false,"key_difference":"The contested object differs—rehearsal slots versus an official planning premise—but both deploy the same masked, resource-capped, audit-tested foresight-submission contest and reach legitimacy through essentially the same causal path; tribunal rebuttal and stress-case status do not create a new intervention."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 preserves vendor substitutability by separating shared infrastructure and funding parallel service lanes; proposal 3 rations signal-escalation rights to reduce attention flooding and provenance games."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs competition for a continuing service-provider role by removing infrastructural lock-in; proposal 4 governs substantive stakeholder advocacy over which demand trajectory receives institutional authority."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 caps nominations before verification using warrants and protected priority credit; proposal 4 adjudicates mature rival models through reproduction, stress testing, rebuttal, and a time-limited premise designation."}],"replacement_indices":[4],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's causal invariants. The portfolio nevertheless fails the strict diversity test because proposals 1 and 4 are variants of the same governed foresight-submission contest: their differing sector, contested output, rebuttal stage, and award labels do not change the core intervention or causal path. Proposal 4 should be replaced; proposal 1 is immutable."}