{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__human_computer_interaction","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the scarce default-interface pilot, eligible teams, common arena, multidimensional held-out scoring, noncompensable harm thresholds, resource caps, audit, fouls, appeals, reversible award, challenger access, authority limits, halt conditions, and an executable shadow test. Its causal path governs strategic rivalry among interface teams so interaction quality rather than cohort choice, metric gaming, resource escalation, or integration capture determines the winner."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines recurring interruption slots, publisher eligibility and aggregation, user-weighted sealed credit bids, caps, standardized salience, protected channels, explanations, appeals, abuse monitoring, self-preference review, rollback conditions, and a mock replay. It faithfully converts unmanaged competition for interruptive attention into a bounded arena where capped opportunity cost and user priorities, rather than frequency, urgency inflation, or identity splitting, govern wins."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines hypothesis registration, eligibility, shared evidence, safety gates, equal-budget rehearsal, scoring, an expiring command lease, protected emergency actions, objections, reopening triggers, audit, rollback, and isolated tabletop testing. It preserves useful diagnostic rivalry while coupling the scarce execution opportunity to observable evidence, reversibility, and bounded blast radius instead of speed, hierarchy, resource capture, or interference."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines a fixed reward pool, qualified entrants, sealed batch submissions, synthetic test scope, evidence and safety gates, resource caps, complementary portfolio scoring, verification, appeals, foul enforcement, recurring entry, post-round review, and a nonmonetary mock round. It governs rival accessibility discovery so distinct reproducible and repair-usable barriers, rather than filing speed, report volume, fragmentation, unsafe probing, or automation scale, capture awards."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses strategic distortion in episodic selection of an interface team for one default deployment using common prototype trials and audited quality scoring; proposal 2 addresses continuous application competition for a user's scarce interruptive attention using publisher-level credit bids and user-weighted recurring slots. The affected problems, interventions, and causal paths all differ."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 selects a human-interface design through held-out usability evaluation and a reversible deployment pilot; proposal 3 selects among operational diagnoses through independent hypothesis registration, sandbox rehearsal, and an expiring production-command lease. Design-quality selection and safe incident action attribution are different problems governed through different arenas and causal mechanisms."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs teams seeking deployment control for competing interface prototypes; proposal 4 governs testers seeking portions of a reward pool for distinct accessibility evidence. One uses multidimensional prototype comparison to choose a temporary default, while the other uses sealed discovery and complementarity-based multiple awards to improve barrier coverage."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 controls a notification frequency and salience arms race through repeated nonmonetary auctions for interruption slots; proposal 3 controls rivalry among incident hypotheses through evidentiary gates, portfolio rehearsal, and serialized command leases. Attention allocation and production-remediation selection have different affected objectives and causal paths."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs runtime allocation of a recipient's interruptive attention among publishers through capped bids; proposal 4 governs batch allocation of discovery rewards among accessibility testers through reproducibility gates and complementary portfolio selection. Neither the contested object nor the intervention or route from governance to benefit is shared."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses unsafe or status-driven selection among competing incident remediations and grants one short execution lease; proposal 4 addresses redundant, unsafe, or speed-driven accessibility bounty reporting and grants several complementary evidence awards. Serialized operational authority and portfolio-based discovery rewards are independently adoptable interventions with distinct causal paths."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals identify genuine scarce prizes and strategically dependent rivals, preserve a stated benefit of competition, and supply the archetype's essential arena boundaries, eligibility, scoring, fair process, anti-abuse controls, spillover constraints, escalation dampers, winner-power protections, and recalibration loops. Each is sufficiently operational for a bounded first test with explicit authority, exclusions, falsifiers, risks, and halt or rollback procedures. Across all six pairs, the affected problem, intervention, and causal path materially differ: prototype deployment selection, runtime interruption allocation, incident-command selection, and accessibility-discovery reward allocation are separate opportunities rather than renamed variants or added features."}