{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__accounting_auditing","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it defines a journal-population abstract state, behavioral operations, exact-once and reconciliation invariants, typed errors, hidden extraction representations, a reusable black-box oracle, leakage controls, and versioned substitution. Its affected problem is population equivalence across extractors."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it defines an actor-sensitive reconciliation-case state machine with accounting, evidence, segregation-of-duties, immutability, error, hiding, conformance, and versioning rules. Its affected problem and intervention concern preservation of reconciliation-control behavior across workflow systems, not extraction or storage."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it specifies allocation-plan values and operations independently of calculation representation, with conservation, eligibility, rounding, residual, determinism, traceability, error, opacity, and shared-oracle requirements. Its intervention governs substitutable financial transformation engines."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it defines an evidence-custody capsule through payload, provenance, derivation, access, hold, retention, disposition, lifecycle, error, opacity, and conformance behavior. Its intervention governs substitutable repositories and custody preservation rather than accounting populations, controls, or calculations."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 contracts a read-only journal population across extraction implementations through scope membership, exact-once inclusion, totals, and lineage; Proposal 2 contracts an actor-governed reconciliation control through accounting equations, evidence gates, approvals, certification, and reopening. Either can be adopted without the other."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 determines whether extractors supply an equivalent set of journal postings; Proposal 3 determines whether calculation engines transform pools and drivers into equivalent recipient allocations. Retrieval completeness and reconciliation form the first causal path, while semantic calculation laws and differential results form the second."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs the membership and delivery behavior of a scoped journal population; Proposal 4 governs integrity, provenance, access, derivation, holds, retention, and disposition of individual evidence artifacts. Lineage appears in both, but serves different components and causal paths rather than making one a feature of the other."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 preserves a human-control workflow and its approval authority across reconciliation tools; Proposal 3 preserves numerical allocation semantics across calculation engines. State-transition and segregation-of-duties enforcement differ materially from conservation, driver, rounding, and residual enforcement."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 decides when an account-reconciliation case is validly prepared, reviewed, certified, or reopened; Proposal 4 preserves evidence custody across repositories. A reconciliation may use any repository, and an evidence capsule may support activities unrelated to reconciliation."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 contracts a financial computation mapping pools and drivers to recipient amounts; Proposal 4 contracts repository custody of evidentiary payloads. Calculation equivalence proceeds through mathematical and differential oracles, whereas custody equivalence proceeds through integrity, authorization, provenance, hold, and lifecycle oracles."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals operationalize the archetype's full causal structure: a representation-independent abstract surface, explicit operations and behavioral laws, hidden concrete representation, typed failures and side-effect limits, abstraction mappings, common conformance oracles, substitutability gates, leakage review, and version governance. They address independently adoptable components with different affected failures, interventions, governing invariants, actors, and causal paths: extraction completeness, reconciliation-control workflow, allocation calculation, and evidence custody. Shared use of the required interface-contract archetype and testing mechanisms does not collapse these into renamed variants."}