{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"predictive_residual_processing__human_computer_interaction","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a command-conditioned accessibility-transition predictor, structured and precision-weighted speech residuals, reconstruction, version synchronization, heartbeats, raw audits, reviewed updates, protected bypasses, and full-speech fallback. Its live auditory-orientation objective is distinct from the other proposals."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines a scoped task-flow model, pre-observation expectations, structured interaction residuals, attention-budgeted retrospective review episodes, reconstruction, synchronization, raw-session audits, drift handling, fallback, and reviewed model revision. It addresses researchers' post-session evidence-review capacity rather than live feedback or operation authorization."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Provides a versioned bulk-operation effect predictor, independent dry-run observation, structured prospective residual preview, consequence weighting, reconstructibility, freshness and compatibility gates, raw-row audits, reviewed updates, protected displays, and complete-preview fallback. Its causal endpoint is informed pre-commit authorization."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Specifies matched client-server predictors, command-conditioned provisional rendering, authoritative residual transmission and digest-verified reconstruction, ordering and version synchronization, raw-response audits, drift monitoring, protected bypasses, and full-scene fallback. It targets remote manipulation continuity and network cost through authoritative state synchronization."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 reallocates a screen-reader user's live auditory attention using residual accessibility-tree announcements; proposal 2 reallocates a UX researcher's retrospective review attention using residualized task-session trajectories."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 filters post-command accessibility feedback for immediate orientation, whereas proposal 3 compares predicted bulk effects with a dry run to foreground discrepancies before an operator commits a data transformation."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Although both begin with an outgoing command, proposal 1 resolves serial speech overload through announcement prioritization, while proposal 4 resolves remote manipulation latency and bandwidth through provisional rendering and authoritative client-server residual reconstruction."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 retrospectively models user task paths to select breakdown evidence for researchers; proposal 3 prospectively models record-level operation effects and compares them with a dry run for a user's commit-or-cancel decision."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 compresses completed behavioral histories into research-review episodes, while proposal 4 operates inside the live perception-action loop and reconstructs authoritative remote scene state from server corrections."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 is a bounded pre-commit visual verification layer over complete prospective dry-run effects; proposal 4 is a continuous distributed-state protocol providing provisional feedback followed by authoritative residual confirmation for reversible manipulations."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals operationalize the archetype's maintained prediction, expected-versus-actual comparison, calibrated residual propagation, reconstruction, residual-driven revision, synchronization, independent raw auditing, and governed full-signal fallback. Their affected problems, interventions, downstream decisions, and causal paths are materially different: live assistive speech, retrospective UX research review, prospective bulk-action authorization, and real-time remote scene synchronization. All six pairs therefore represent independently adoptable opportunities rather than renamed variants, added features, narrower populations, or implementation differences."}