{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__human_computer_interaction","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies an eligible breakdown-to-capsule transformation, recurring reconstruction barrier, reusable selective compiler, consented interface, counterfactual, turnover and capacity measures, purge/reset regeneration, drift and poisoning controls, downstream limits, authority, shutdown, and falsifiers. Its evidentiary capture pathway is distinct from live floor allocation, settings configuration, and prototype simulation."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a live bid-to-completed-contribution transformation, recurrent cross-modality floor-negotiation barrier, content-neutral reusable broker, explicit bid/grant/release interface, selectivity and exception routing, turnover limits, per-turn regeneration, monitoring, counterfactual trial, governance, and deactivation. The broker repeatedly lowers coordination burden without creating participation rights or supplying each contribution."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a session-to-accommodated-session transformation, repeated cross-application preference-translation barrier, reusable intent-to-settings compiler, versioned contracts, user confirmation, validated release, reset and mapping refresh, capacity and selectivity measurement, baseline, authority, rollback, and falsifiers. It accelerates access only to settings already supported by the application."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a behavior-hypothesis-to-controlled-trial transformation, repeated prototype-interior setup barrier, reusable shell and governed operator facility, bounded behavior contracts, admission selectivity, fidelity assay, operator capacity, session reset, baseline comparison, debriefing, authority, and stop rules. It expressly limits outputs to experiential evidence and does not claim technical feasibility."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 retrospectively compiles a user's breakdown and transient interface context into an investigation artifact; Proposal 2 prospectively brokers live, content-free contribution bids into temporary floor grants and completed contributions through grant-release-reset cycles."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 reduces diagnostic-context reconstruction by producing a replay capsule for investigators; Proposal 3 reduces accommodation setup translation by applying a user-approved configuration diff to an already-capable application. Although both use compilation, their inputs, transformations, outputs, recipients, controls, and causal paths differ materially."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 captures evidence after an experienced interface failure for product investigation; Proposal 4 instantiates hypothetical interface behavior before implementation for controlled participant research using a reusable simulation shell and specialist lane."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 resolves real-time contention among multiple contributors by allocating and releasing a shared interaction floor; Proposal 3 translates one user's functional intents into persistent or session-specific application settings through previewed, reversible configuration."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs timing and access within an actual collaborative session through a standing allocation broker; Proposal 4 creates controlled simulated behaviors for research through reusable prototype infrastructure and bounded hidden operation."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 configures existing supported application capabilities for a user's accommodated operation; Proposal 4 simulates not-yet-built behavior to generate bounded experiential evidence, using a prototype shell, behavior modules, and governed operator capacity."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"Every proposal is operationally complete and preserves the archetype's defining closed cycle: an already feasible and permitted recurring transformation, a specific repeated barrier, a selective reusable facilitator, an explicit engagement and release interface, measurable counterfactual turnover, capacity and downstream limits, degradation monitoring, regeneration or retirement, neutrality, and accountable governance. All six pairs differ in affected problem, substantive intervention, and causal path; shared supporting mechanisms such as interface contracts, monitoring, screening, and regeneration are archetype requirements rather than evidence of duplicated opportunities."}