{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"predictive_residual_processing__religious_studies_theology","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a scoped pre-observation sequence predictor, structured residuals, precision routing, version-compatible reconstruction, validated updating, independent full-record audits, drift controls, bypasses, fallback, baseline, falsifiers, authority, and a bounded test. Its problem and causal endpoint are comparative detection of consequential variation in recurrent ritual records."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally closes the prediction-comparison-residual-reconstruction-update loop around a versioned doctrinal commitment graph, with plural-model checks, raw-text audits, synchronization, semantic error limits, protected bypasses, and full-review fallback. It addresses unexamined consequences in institutional drafting and routes hierarchical implication residuals toward accountable adoption deliberation."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines participant-controlled predictive meaning states, speaker-validated residuals, precision weighting, compatible reconstruction, hierarchical clarification, periodic resynchronization, independent full-context audits, consent-sensitive bypasses, and decompression. Its target is live listener reconstruction, and its causal result is repaired mutual understanding or explicitly preserved disagreement."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Specifies pre-response learner-state predictions, structured rubric residuals, uncertainty-aware routing, compatible profile reconstruction, human-validated updates, independent full marking, equity-sensitive error budgets, bypasses, fallback, a comparator, and a held-out test. Its causal endpoint is targeted formative feedback and subsequent learning-state revision."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 detects locally or historically significant variation in completed ritual corpora using collection-specific event-sequence prediction; Proposal 2 traces latent consequences of proposed doctrinal wording using a hierarchical commitment graph feeding institutional revision deliberation."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 compresses first-pass scholarly review of archival ritual records to surface variants; Proposal 3 synchronizes participant-specific semantic expectations during live dialogue and routes speaker-validated clarifications to repair listener understanding."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 uses a corpus-level ritual sequence model to improve comparative variant discovery; Proposal 4 uses student-specific learner-state models to identify changes in academic reasoning and trigger formative feedback across assignments."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 models one institution's prior commitments and propagates draft implications toward an authorized adoption decision; Proposal 3 maintains reciprocal speaker-controlled meaning profiles to correct cross-participant reconstruction without drafting, adjudication, or required consensus."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 predicts semantic consequences across doctrinal loci in a collective governance process; Proposal 4 predicts rubric-level features of individual coursework and converts validated performance residuals into bounded educational feedback and learner-state updates."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses synchronous interreligious misunderstanding through speaker-authored meaning models and clarification residuals; Proposal 4 addresses asynchronous formative-review load through learner models, rubric residuals, and performance-to-feedback-to-later-performance learning."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's essential causal structure: an explicit scoped predictor generates expectations, actual observations are compared into structured and uncertainty-weighted residuals, residuals govern scarce attention while supporting reconstruction and controlled updating, and independent raw audits, synchronization, drift detection, protected bypasses, and full-signal fallback constrain suppression. Although each instantiates predictive residual processing, no pair merely renames the same opportunity: the affected problems, maintained models and interventions, decision authorities, and downstream causal paths differ materially across corpus scholarship, doctrinal drafting, live interreligious dialogue, and formative education."}