{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__aviation_aeronautics","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies participants, cadence, symbolic sequence, voluntary participation, authority boundaries, practical tracker closure, evidence testing, harm review, rollback, repair, and retirement. It faithfully uses recurring symbolic witnessing and commitment renewal to preserve the meaning and stewardship of unresolved flight-test uncertainty."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Specifies legitimate sponsors, cross-employer participants, accessible alternatives, a marked non-operational setting, reciprocal enactment, governance transfer, evaluation, rollback, and retirement. Its causal center is the ritualized mutual recognition of stop-work standing across organizational boundaries, not anomaly memory or technical allocation management."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Provides a governed quarterly sequence with affected-party standing, sensory consent, plural histories, witnessed acknowledgment, institutional recommitment, ledger closure, debriefing, audit, repair, and exit. It faithfully converts fragmented public memory and repeated testimony into a recurring, answerable community-institution commitment cycle."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Defines the participating disciplines, cadence, controlled inputs, bilateral card transfer, protected response choices, voluntary commitment paths, governance closure, evidence comparison, authority limits, rollback, and retirement. It ritualizes reciprocal stewardship of approved system margins while explicitly preserving technical dissent and decision authority."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses loss of interpretive continuity for a particular unresolved technical uncertainty through witnessed custodianship and tracker-linked evidence action. Proposal 2 addresses weak cross-employer legitimacy for interrupting ramp work through shared-envelope enactment, reciprocal support exchange, and correction of response interfaces."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 preserves the epistemic meaning and ownership of flight-test anomalies inside a technical program using a circulating anomaly card. Proposal 3 preserves contested community memory and public institutional commitments through bounded listening, paired provenance accounts, witnessed acknowledgment, and a public ledger."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 concerns unresolved observations becoming socially thin across turnover and renews a custodian's obligation to pursue evidence. Proposal 4 concerns hidden cross-disciplinary externalities of already-approved margins and uses directional dependency transfers plus protected recipient responses to expose disputes and reciprocal stewardship."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 establishes reciprocal stop-work recognition among simultaneously operating employers through embodied spatial coordination and exchanged support paths. Proposal 3 establishes accountability between affected communities and aviation institutions through reflective listening, contested historical reconstruction, and visible renewal or revision of public commitments."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 targets hesitation and coordination gaps at live-work organizational interfaces, with a non-operational envelope ritual making interruption support legible. Proposal 4 targets local optimization and misunderstood design dependencies, with controlled margin-transfer cards making subsystem consequences and technical disagreement legible."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses repeated community disclosure and institutional promise drift using sensory reflection, paired narratives, and a public commitment ledger. Proposal 4 addresses internal engineering margin stewardship using controlled dependency accounts, bilateral transfer, plural technical uptake, and routing into design governance."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's defining causal structure: a legitimate recurring symbolic occasion makes an abstract meaning or obligation socially legible, enables plural and nonretaliatory participation, connects enactment to practical follow-through, preserves memory, and remains subject to feedback, repair, and retirement. Although they share lifecycle guardrails required by the archetype, their affected problems, domain-specific interventions, and causal paths are materially different: unresolved test uncertainty, cross-employer stop-work legitimacy, community-facing noise accountability, and cross-disciplinary design-margin stewardship."}