{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__futurism_foresight","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it specifies a scenario-set abstract state, behavioral operations and invariants, hidden representations, typed errors and side-effect limits, reusable conformance oracles, leakage controls, versioning, substitutability criteria, authority limits, falsifiers, and a bounded evidence step. Its opportunity concerns semantic preservation of plural scenario sets across media."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it defines an opaque Delphi elicitation state machine with eligibility, anonymity, response, withdrawal, closure, aggregation, and feedback laws, plus black-box conformance and leakage gates. Its procedural and identity-separation problem is materially distinct from scenario translation, signpost monitoring, and forecast evaluation."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it defines a representation-independent adaptive-signpost register with temporal event semantics, provenance, missingness, revision, deterministic replay, lifecycle states, alert behavior, and substitution tests. Its intervention preserves monitoring-trigger semantics rather than scenario meaning, elicitation procedure, or forecast scoring."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it specifies resolvable forecast claims through abstract outcomes, immutable update histories, closure and terminal-state laws, resolution and scoring rules, opacity, conformance oracles, and version governance. Its opportunity concerns preservation of ex ante probability judgments and retrospective evaluation, distinct from the other three objects and causal paths."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 prevents semantic drift when plural scenario sets move among representations; Proposal 2 prevents procedural and anonymity drift in multiround Delphi execution. The former contracts scenario identity, provenance, uncertainty, and implications, while the latter contracts eligibility, responses, closure, withdrawal, aggregation, feedback, and identity separation."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs the meaning and translation of scenario sets; Proposal 3 governs observation-driven signpost state and advisory alerts. Their causal paths respectively preserve scenario semantics through abstract queries and preserve trigger commitments through temporal ingestion, replay, and alert-state conformance."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 contracts plural future-world representations and their implications; Proposal 4 contracts individual probabilistic claims, update histories, resolution, and scoring. Neither intervention is required to implement the other, and their governed behaviors and outcomes differ materially."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 preserves an anonymous expert-elicitation procedure across platforms; Proposal 3 preserves temporal monitoring and review-alert semantics across dashboards and data pipelines. Participant lifecycle and feedback controls are distinct from observation histories, threshold persistence, replay, and alert acknowledgment."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs panel participation, anonymous responses, aggregation populations, and controlled feedback across Delphi rounds; Proposal 4 governs a forecast claim's probability updates, closure, resolution, cancellation, and scoring. The latter does not manage an elicitation panel, and the former does not establish resolvable-claim evaluation histories."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 ingests external observations to evaluate persistent thresholds and emit advisory policy-review alerts; Proposal 4 records ex ante probability distributions and later resolves and scores claims. Although both use versioned event histories, their affected problems, public operations, terminal behaviors, and causal paths are materially different."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's full causal structure: a precise behavioral surface, hidden representation, state laws and invariants, error and side-effect semantics, representation-independent conformance testing, leakage control, and an explicit substitution rule. Their shared archetype does not collapse them into variants because each contracts a different governed object and remedies a different failure: scenario-set semantic translation, Delphi procedural integrity and anonymity, adaptive-signpost temporal alerting, and forecast-claim resolution and scoring. Every pair differs in affected problem, concrete intervention, and causal path, and each opportunity is independently adoptable."}