{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__futurism_foresight","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the scarce rehearsal slots, eligible rivals, bounded conduct, auditable scoring, portfolio awards, due process, anti-abuse controls, externality protections, escalation caps, challenger access, and recalibration. Its causal chain makes complementary, decision-relevant scenario quality the route to winning rather than presentation power or agenda capture."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully defines rivalry over a continuing forecasting-service role, including the protected common infrastructure, production and shadow prizes, eligibility, comparative tests, protests, transition bonds, collusion screens, displacement thresholds, lock-in review, and post-cycle revision. It preserves rivalry while removing control of essential infrastructure as a winning strategy."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully specifies a governed contest for scarce weak-signal verification capacity, with equal nontransferable warrants, confidential priority registration, evidence requirements, masked scoring, portfolio selection, mandatory-channel protections, foul enforcement, challenger entry, and resolution-window learning. The warrant cap directly changes the flooding incentive while retaining distributed search rivalry."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully specifies rivalry for rotating forecast-council seats through balanced compulsory assignments, sealed forecasts, equal research resources, proper scoring, audits, appeals, foul rules, promotion and relegation, staggered continuity, and post-season review. These controls couple temporary advisory authority to verified repeated forecasting performance rather than exposure selection, herding, spending, or outcome influence."}],"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 when selecting scenarios for scarce rehearsals through a governed submission and portfolio-award contest; proposal 2 corrects incumbent infrastructural foreclosure in a recurring forecasting-service procurement through a fund-owned common layer, funded shadow lane, and displacement process."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 allocates a few expensive rehearsal slots among developed scenario packages; proposal 3 rations upstream verification attention among weak-signal claims. The former relies on comparative scenario testing and complementary rehearsal awards, while the latter uses nomination warrants and protected priority registration to prevent queue flooding."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs judged selection of scenario teams and rehearsal content; proposal 4 governs repeated outcome-resolved performance by individual forecasters for temporary council membership through balanced assignments, sealing, proper scores, and promotion or relegation."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 addresses durable vendor lock-in caused by ownership of forecasting infrastructure and switching dependencies; proposal 3 addresses excessive and strategically promoted weak-signal nominations consuming limited human verification. Protected interfaces and challenger operation are causally different from warrant-based intake rationing and provenance registration."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs organizations competing to provide an operational forecasting service and prevents infrastructure-based foreclosure; proposal 4 governs forecasters competing for advisory seats and prevents selective exposure, copying, unequal research, and outcome influence through sealed standardized play."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 governs which emerging claims receive scarce investigation, using equal nomination warrants to force upstream prioritization; proposal 4 governs who earns temporary advisory authority, using assigned forecast questions and resolved-outcome scoring to establish comparative performance."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"Every proposal is operationally complete and preserves the archetype's essential causal structure: an explicit purpose and scarce prize, legitimate entrants, bounded actions, meaningful scoring, fair process, anti-abuse enforcement, spillover controls, escalation damping, winner contestability, and recalibration. All six pairs differ materially in the affected problem, intervention, and causal path. Shared governance mechanisms such as rulebooks, audits, appeals, caps, and challenger access are archetype invariants rather than evidence that the opportunities are renamed variants."}