{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__religious_studies_theology","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the scarce module slots, entrants, rules, scoring, portfolio selection, due process, anti-abuse controls, labor caps, challenger access, impact review, authority limits, falsifiers, and a bounded evidence step. Its causal chain keeps faculty rivalry coupled to portfolio-level pedagogical value rather than lobbying, overproduction, reciprocal support, or incumbency."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines a scarce verification grant and provisional designation, eligible rival claims, frozen proposition, symmetric evidence budgets, head-to-head testing, scoring, source audit, anti-abuse controls, appeals, expiration, and review. It faithfully uses governed rivalry to make evidential discrimination—not prestige, caricature, or resource volume—the route to winning."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines community-controlled access capacity, eligibility, noncontestable consent and cultural boundaries, portfolio scoring, cumulative burden ceilings, remediation guarantees, foul controls, reopening, review, authority limits, falsifiers, and a safe first audit. Its causal path governs strategic competition for human and institutional fieldwork capacity by internalizing cumulative burden and preventing access capture."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines comparable preservation lots, eligibility and authority floors, sealed reverse bids, lifecycle externality adjustments, audits, concentration limits, secured remediation, anti-collusion controls, rebidding, anti-lock-in review, and recalibration. Its causal path uses governed cost revelation to make auditable full-lifecycle preservation cost the winning strategy rather than underbidding or cost dumping."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses strategic selection of complementary teaching modules through portfolio scoring and curricular slot rotation; proposal 2 addresses weak adversarial testing of rival scholarly interpretations through paired evidential rounds, source audits, and an expiring reference designation."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs pedagogical module selection within a course; proposal 3 governs scarce community-facilitated fieldwork access. The former aligns competition with curricular complementarity, while the latter constrains cumulative participant and hosting burdens under consent and cultural floors."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 uses rubric-based portfolio selection for curriculum slots; proposal 4 uses an externality-adjusted reverse auction for preservation capacity and subsidy. Their causal paths are pedagogical contribution versus auditable lifecycle-cost revelation."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 stages bounded head-to-head competition among interpretations to reveal discriminating evidence; proposal 3 selects a burden-bounded portfolio of research projects seeking community access, without ranking their interpretations or requiring a common proposition."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs epistemic rivalry using steelmanning, paired tests, and provenance audits; proposal 4 governs preservation-resource allocation using sealed subsidy bids, standardized work units, externality reserves, and technical anti-lock-in measures."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses researcher competition for participant, event, liaison, and collection access through community-majority portfolio review and cumulative human-burden controls; proposal 4 addresses custodian competition for preservation infrastructure through reverse-auction cost discovery and lifecycle-risk internalization."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals identify genuine scarce prizes and strategically interdependent rivals, then specify purpose, eligibility, arena boundaries, meaningful scoring, due process, anti-sabotage and anti-collusion safeguards, spillover controls, escalation dampers, winner-power checks, and recalibration. Each is operationally testable and preserves domain-specific noncontestable authority and safety boundaries. Across all six pairs, the affected problems, interventions, and causal paths differ materially: curriculum portfolio selection, adversarial interpretation testing, community-governed fieldwork-capacity allocation, and preservation-cost discovery are independently adoptable opportunities rather than renamed variants or population-specific implementations."}