{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__human_computer_interaction","portfolio_valid":false,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: it specifies a feasible recurring transformation, a selective reusable capsule compiler, bounded intake, measured turnover, reset and refresh, downstream limits, neutrality, stewardship, counterfactual testing, and shutdown rules."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":false,"reason":"Complete and catalytically faithful, but it is materially a renamed application of Proposal 1: both solve repeated reconstruction of digital interaction state by screening declared context, compiling a verified state artifact for a human recipient, measuring corrections and queues, then clearing and refreshing the compiler."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful. It addresses cross-application accommodation setup through a user-controlled intent-to-settings compiler whose causal result is transactional configuration of an already-capable session, not production of a diagnostic or resumption artifact."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful. Its reusable shell, controlled automation, and governed operator lane lower the recurring setup barrier for simulated behavioral research, with explicit eligibility, fidelity, turnover, regeneration, operator recovery, neutrality, and deactivation controls."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":true,"same_intervention":true,"independent_opportunity":false,"key_difference":"The surface context changes from retrospective user-to-product diagnosis to operator-to-operator case resumption, but both address reconstruction of distributed digital state with the same screened state-compiler-to-verified-packet causal path."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 compiles evidence about a past interaction failure for investigation; Proposal 3 translates a user's functional preferences into confirmed changes to a current application's settings."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 reduces diagnostic-context reconstruction after a breakdown, whereas Proposal 4 uses reusable simulation infrastructure and bounded human operation to instantiate unbuilt behaviors for research."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 produces a verified informational handoff packet so work can resume; Proposal 3 executes reversible application configuration so a user can operate an accommodated session."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 reconstructs authoritative state in ongoing casework, while Proposal 4 creates controlled simulated interaction behavior to generate bounded experiential evidence before implementation."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 maps stable user intents onto existing application capabilities; Proposal 4 instantiates hypothetical behavior through a reusable prototype shell and specialist simulation lane."}],"replacement_indices":[2],"rationale":"Every proposal is operationally complete and preserves the archetype's reusable-facilitator cycle, selectivity, capacity, regeneration, counterfactual measurement, neutrality, governance, and deactivation structure. The portfolio nevertheless fails material diversity because Proposals 1 and 2 share the same underlying problem form, intervention, and causal pathway; changing the handoff participants and artifact label does not create an independent opportunity. Replace only Proposal 2."}