{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__accounting_auditing","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies milestone triggers, roles, consent and exit paths, symbolic sequence, official issue transfer, authority limits, halt conditions, falsifiers, and a controlled first test. It faithfully uses recurring governed symbolic enactment to turn professional skepticism into witnessed, revisable, materially tracked obligations. Its problem and mechanism center—rank-independent surfacing and disposition of contrary audit evidence—are unique in the portfolio."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines verified-history preparation, safe functional reenactment, reciprocal exchange, controlled documentation, stewardship handoff, review, retirement, and synthetic evaluation. It preserves the archetype's recurrence, symbolism, participation, consent, practical follow-through, memory, drift detection, and repair lifecycle. Its center is loss of control provenance and reciprocal operating meaning across turnover, addressed through reenactment and stewardship renewal."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally provides event triggers, confidential alternatives, provisional boundary mapping, independent witnessing, official decision routing, authority exclusions, rollback, and comparative testing. It faithfully converts the abstract public-duty meaning of independence into a recurring, consent-governed symbolic enactment tied to real consultation and role-substitution obligations. Its center is engagement independence under commercial pressure, not evidence evaluation, control memory, or post-close recovery."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally separates ceremonial release from official reporting status, defines optional participation and recognition, routes residual work, limits workforce commitments to authorized actors, and includes debrief, later audit, rollback, and testing. It faithfully uses marked recurrence, plural embodied participation, recognition, material closure, accountability, repair, and retirement. Its center is the transition out of exceptional close-mode labor and delivery of recovery obligations."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses suppression or implicit closure of current contrary audit evidence through rank-redistributed witnessing and issue disposition; proposal 2 addresses eroded control provenance across turnover through verified incident reenactment, reciprocal dependency exchange, and stewardship handoff."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 operates during audit milestones on unresolved evidentiary contradictions using an open-question token and witnessed routing; proposal 3 operates at acceptance, continuance, or scope changes on independence threats using absent-user representation, provisional service-boundary mapping, confidential consultation, and role substitution."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 keeps potentially conclusion-changing audit evidence open and traceable; proposal 4 marks release from exceptional close work while preserving residual-task ownership and binding leaders to authorized recovery and workload actions."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 preserves why a financial-reporting control exists through historical reenactment and reciprocal control stewardship; proposal 3 makes auditor independence and absent-user standing salient through boundary mapping, incentive acknowledgment, consultation, and withdrawal legitimacy."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 repairs institutional memory and cross-functional meaning of inherited controls; proposal 4 governs the post-close transition from exceptional labor to ordinary work through release, recognition, residual-task separation, and recovery follow-through."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses independence threats before or during engagement commitments by representing absent users and routing uncertain relationships or services; proposal 4 occurs after a reporting milestone and addresses ambiguous workload release, residual work, and workforce recovery."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's defining governed cycle: explicit and contestable meaning, recurring marked enactment, legitimate participation and refusal, symbolic action, practical consequences, memory, feedback, drift review, repair, and retirement. Every pair differs simultaneously in affected problem, intervention design, and causal path, so none is merely a renamed variant, added feature, narrower population, or implementation detail of another proposal."}