{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__criminology_forensic","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies an eligible file-to-compatibility-packet transformation, recurring technical setup barrier, reusable reference-and-automation gateway, selective interface, examiner-controlled endpoint, turnover measures, reset cycle, saturation and degradation controls, counterfactual probe, and halt rules. Its causal path is repeated reuse of validated analytical infrastructure, not added examiner capacity or relaxed attribution standards."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines referral eligibility, authority boundaries, minimum-data handoffs, cofactors, broker capacity, privacy controls, regeneration of relational and staff readiness, measurable turnover, and a bounded test. It faithfully uses maintained institutional trust and translation as a reusable facilitator for pre-comparison coordination, without creating authority, specimens, laboratory capacity, or identification conclusions."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines controlled-scene eligibility, structured intake, bounded specialist outputs, local decision authority, mandatory escalation, specialist workload limits, record closure, rest and rotation, quality measures, simulation testing, and rollback. The rotating consult lane repeatedly lowers a time-sensitive interpretation-access barrier while preserving safeguards and explicitly regenerating exhaustible human capacity."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies nomination inputs, authoritative verification sources, conservative blocked and indeterminate states, unchanged retention constraints, custodian review, workflow reset, rule freshness, capacity metering, error assays, shadow testing, and rollback before irreversible disposition. Its reusable verification workflow accelerates proof of existing eligibility rather than changing retention authorization."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses repeated technical reconstruction during digital source-class analysis with a computational reference gateway; proposal 2 addresses cross-jurisdiction search, trust, authorization, and handoff friction with a neutral institutional broker. Their outputs and causal paths are respectively an examiner-reviewed analytical packet through reusable validated computation and a laboratory-ready coordination packet through reusable relational capital."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 accelerates repeatable digital-file feature extraction and comparison through fixed analytical infrastructure, whereas proposal 3 accelerates time-sensitive preservation decisions at altered-remains scenes through bounded human specialist consultation. One acts on supported files to reduce technical setup; the other acts on controlled scene packets to overcome immediate expert-access and context-reconstruction barriers."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 solves recurring scientific-analysis setup with a production-signature reference gateway; proposal 4 solves recurring governance-proof assembly for evidence disposition with an authoritative-source clearance workflow. The former produces a technical compatibility assessment, while the latter produces a conservative eligibility certificate without performing forensic analysis or disposition."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 uses a standing neutral broker to overcome interinstitutional trust, authority, identifier, and laboratory-submission barriers before identification comparison; proposal 3 uses a rotating qualified specialist lane to overcome a time-critical scientific-interpretation barrier at a controlled scene. Relational coordination turnover and expert-judgment turnover are distinct causal pathways with different substrates and outputs."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 transforms candidate-pair referrals into accepted cross-jurisdiction comparison handoffs by reusing relationships and translation knowledge; proposal 4 transforms evidence-disposition nominations into clearance classifications by reusing verified source mappings and rule-bound checks. The former enables initiation of human-identification testing, while the latter documents post-case retention eligibility under unchanged custody authority."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses transient evidence-preservation uncertainty at active scenes through adaptive specialist judgment and escalation; proposal 4 addresses delayed disposition review through deterministic multi-source verification and conservative exception routing. Their causal paths differ between rapid access to reusable expertise and repeated execution of a prevalidated administrative clearance pathway."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's full catalytic cycle: a feasible recurring transformation, identified barrier, selective reusable facilitator, explicit interface, measurable turnover, active-capacity limits, monitoring, regeneration, unchanged substantive standards, accountable authority, and deactivation or rollback. Every pair differs simultaneously in the affected problem, intervention, and causal path; none is merely a renamed variant, feature addition, narrower population, or implementation detail of another proposal."}