{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__chemistry_materials","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: a governed monthly symbolic cycle makes tacit sample-lineage meaning shared and memorable, connects optional enactment to concrete repository obligations, and includes consent, accessibility, handoff, feedback, repair, and retirement."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: a post-gate assembly makes evidence-based continuation, revision, or release socially legible, renews or discharges commitment, and converts the enacted decision into route-level closure obligations without replacing technical authority."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: an affected-party-governed, two-part observance acknowledges verified incident facts, uncertainty, loss, and repair; renews nonretaliation and reporting commitments; tests follow-through; and preserves refusal, correction, repair, and retirement."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete and faithful: a recurring post-reference-round covenant uses plural symbolic responses to enact evidence-bounded comparability, recognize disclosure and claim narrowing, transfer standards memory, assign technical follow-through, and retire unsupported commitments."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses loss of sample-level provenance across turnover through archive-sealing and custody renewal; Proposal 2 addresses identity- and sponsorship-driven persistence or incomplete termination of whole synthesis routes through conditional renewal or release enactment."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 preserves routine repository lineage and tacit sample context; Proposal 3 repairs post-contamination reporting relationships, reputational harm, and unresolved incident obligations through an affected-party truth-and-repair cycle."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 makes individual sample histories transferable and interpretable; Proposal 4 makes cross-laboratory measurement-comparability boundaries collectively explicit through a reference-round covenant and evidence-constrained charter."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 enacts portfolio decisions about continuing, revising, or releasing research routes; Proposal 3 follows a contamination investigation to acknowledge uncertainty and harm, renew nonretaliatory reporting, and complete material repair."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs the social release or conditional continuation of a synthesis route after a technical gate; Proposal 4 governs bounded interpretation of measurements across laboratories after blinded reference testing."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 is an event-triggered relational repair intervention after contamination and affected loss; Proposal 4 is a proactive recurring comparability intervention for ordinary methodological drift, using plural clause responses and a bounded data charter."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals specify an observable problem, governed recurring symbolic enactment, practical closure, authority boundaries, safeguards, falsifiers, rollback, and bounded evidence tests. Each preserves the archetype's full causal structure rather than using ceremony as decoration or as a substitute for technical controls. Although they share archetypal governance mechanisms, their affected problems, central interventions, outputs, and causal paths are independently distinct: sample-lineage memory, route commitment release, post-contamination relational repair, and cross-laboratory comparability governance."}