{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__mathematics","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the scarce verification slot, eligible proof teams, correctness gate, secondary scoring, equalized reviewer access, prohibited tactics, appeals, staged reopening, observables, authority limits, falsifiers, and a shadow test. Its causal path faithfully governs rivalry so proof-route suitability, rather than strategic packaging, determines selection."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully specifies a contest for persistent default-interface status, including semantic gates, common-corpus audits, migration obligations, retained funding, governance separation, challenger access, lock-in review, rollback, and falsification. It governs interface rivalry through interoperability and contestability rather than proof-route evaluation."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully defines a six-slot problem-sourcing arena with eligibility, confidentiality, validity gates, pilot solving, grading audits, portfolio-level selection, submission caps, sanctions, appeals, one-cycle awards, and post-contest review. Its distinctive causal mechanism is selecting complementary assessment items while preventing leakage, ambiguity, and author-access advantages."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Fully specifies repeated allocation of indivisible compute windows through qualified sealed credit bidding, separate externality charges, a refundable bond, stable identities, caps, standby transfer, anti-collusion referral, appeals, recalibration, and shadow testing. It preserves bounded rivalry without asking administrators to rank mathematical merit."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses strategic selection among proof routes for one verification slot through reproduction and correctness-gated route scoring; proposal 2 addresses semantic migration loss and durable default-interface lock-in through an interoperability trial, secured exit duties, governance separation, and recurrent challenge."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 selects a route for formalizing an already targeted theorem; proposal 3 selects a complementary portfolio of live competition problems through confidential validation, pilot solving, grading tests, and set-level optimization."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 combats concealed proof defects and reviewer-facing escalation using a correctness-gated proof challenge; proposal 4 combats queue manipulation and operational spillovers using opportunity-cost credits, sealed clearing, surcharges, bonds, and standby reassignment."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs a persistent technical standard whose network effects can foreclose rival foundations; proposal 3 governs one-cycle authorship claims on six event-specific problem slots, optimizing portfolio complementarity and grading reliability."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 chooses and periodically challenges a shared library interface through semantic comparison and exit-readiness controls; proposal 4 repeatedly allocates consumable compute windows through sealed internal-credit auctions and operational-liability rules."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses validity, leakage, redundancy, and grading burdens in a multi-winner content portfolio; proposal 4 addresses priority revelation, nonuse, overruns, and collusion in repeated single-window resource allocation."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's essential causal structure: an explicit rivalrous purpose and scarce prize, legitimate entrants and actions, purpose-aligned selection, fair process, anti-abuse and spillover controls, escalation dampers, limited winner power, and recalibration. Although they reuse necessary archetype-level governance components, the six pairs differ in affected problem, intervention, and causal path: proof-route verification, foundational-interface governance, problem-set portfolio construction, and compute-window allocation are independently adoptable opportunities rather than renamed variants or feature extensions."}