{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__sociology_anthropology","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the scarce placements and liaison capacity, entrants, allowed and prohibited strategies, multidimensional scoring, portfolio awards, appeals, burden controls, anti-collusion inquiry, sanctions, expiration, and review. It faithfully makes responsible methodological contribution—not gatekeeper capture, spending, or burden shifting—the route to winning. Its affected problem is prospective field-site access and cumulative community burden."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a staged custody tender, synthetic trial, eligibility floor, common tasks, held-out audit, dual-custodian portfolio, transition reserve, protest route, collusion screening, portability requirements, challenger window, and impact review. It faithfully governs repository rivalry so demonstrated stewardship and transferable custody defeat cheap lock-in bids. Its problem and intervention concern archival custody, recovery, and migration rather than research access, civic representation, or scholarly interpretation."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines three time-limited liaison mandates, eligibility, equal campaign resources, standardized communication exercises, dissent-preserving metrics, direct noncontestable civic channels, portfolio selection, sanctions, stipend retention, challenge triggers, and post-term review. It faithfully bounds organizational rivalry so accountable plural communication displaces manufactured unity, intimidation, and gatekeeper capture. Its affected problem is official civic liaison authority."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines scarce commissions and follow-up funding, secure common evidence, preregistration, analyst-hour limits, evidence maps, reserved cases, audits, plural awards, misconduct controls, remediation holdbacks, challenger access, and ex-post review. It faithfully governs epistemic rivalry so traceable, scope-calibrated explanation defeats cherry-picking, labor escalation, and canonization. Its problem and causal path concern selection among scholarly explanations, not access, custody, or representation."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 allocates prospective fieldwork placements by governing researcher conduct, community burden, and methodological complementarity; Proposal 2 awards time-limited archival custody through executable preservation, recovery, and export testing. One reduces recruitment and gatekeeper harms, while the other reduces repository lock-in and lifecycle stewardship failure."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs research teams seeking institution-sponsored field access; Proposal 3 governs associations seeking municipal liaison mandates. The former couples selection to responsible study design and bounded participant burden, whereas the latter couples appointment to accessible, dissent-preserving communication while protecting direct civic voice."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Although both involve research teams, Proposal 1 bounds competition for field placements before data collection, while Proposal 4 bounds competition for publication and follow-up awards after a corpus exists. Their causal paths respectively address access capture and cumulative burden versus cherry-picking, evidentiary adequacy, and interpretive lock-in."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 tests repositories for preservation, protocol execution, recovery, and portable custody of records; Proposal 3 tests civic associations for two-way communication, accessibility, grievance handling, and faithful reporting of disagreement. Archival infrastructure lock-in and representative gatekeeper power are separate problems with different interventions and outcomes."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Both touch an existing corpus, but Proposal 2 selects its operational custodian through preservation and export trials, while Proposal 4 leaves custody fixed and selects explanatory work through preregistration, evidence mapping, reserved cases, and claim audit. The first preserves transferable stewardship; the second preserves evidentiary and interpretive contestability."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 allocates municipal liaison seats and constrains identity policing, intimidation, false consensus, and official gatekeeper capture; Proposal 4 allocates scholarly commissions and constrains selective evidence, irreproducible analysis, and premature canonization. Civic communication performance and explanatory adequacy are distinct affected objectives and causal paths."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype’s full causal structure: each identifies a legitimate purpose and scarce prize, retains useful rivalry, bounds entry and conduct, aligns scoring with intended contribution, supplies due process and anti-abuse enforcement, internalizes spillovers, dampens escalation, limits winner lock-in, and recalibrates from outcomes. The six pairs differ jointly in affected problem, concrete intervention, and causal path. Repeated governance components are invariant features of the shared archetype rather than renamed variants: the opportunities independently concern fieldwork access, archival custody, civic liaison authority, and scholarly explanation."}