{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__environmental_climate","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, trigger, ritual sequence, voluntary participation, witnessed handoff, task-system closure, authority limits, audit, rollback, falsifiers, and a bounded pilot. It faithfully converts abstract seasonal stewardship into recurring symbolic enactment with material follow-through, memory, consent, adaptation, and retirement. Its target is prospective continuity of a monitoring custody chain."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines the post-review trigger, differentiated authority, provenance sequence, optional recognition, retirement boundary, archival and migration actions, safeguards, rollback, falsifiers, and pilot. It faithfully uses governed ritual closure to release an obsolete package while preserving memory and transferring residual obligations. Its target is the socially ambiguous ending of a scientific artifact."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally separates emergency response and factual validation from a voluntary witnessing sequence, bounded lament, authorized obligation assignment, ledger closure, safety controls, repair, rollback, falsifiers, and comparative testing. It faithfully makes ecological loss and continuing obligations socially legible through an event-triggered, symbolically marked, consent-aware cycle. Its target is fragmented recognition and response after disturbance."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies a synthesis-freeze trigger, plural boundary declarations, nonassenting response, residual circulation, disclosure commitments, publication-system closure, governance limits, audit, rollback, falsifiers, and tabletop evidence. It faithfully turns abstract epistemic restraint into recurring symbolic performance tied to observable editorial conduct. Its target is loss of boundary and uncertainty salience during active synthesis."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 prevents prospective monitoring gaps through seasonal responsibility renewal and capability handoff; Proposal 2 ends ambiguous use of a deprecated projection package through provenance enactment, deconsecrating retirement, preservation, migration, and release of obsolete custody."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 acts before routine fieldwork to renew ownership of an observation chain; Proposal 3 acts after ecological disturbance to witness verified loss, preserve changed-baseline memory, and establish continuing response obligations."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 makes operational stewardship assignments and tacit handoffs explicit before a season; Proposal 4 makes heterogeneous scientific boundaries, unresolved residuals, dissent, and disclosure ownership jointly visible before publication."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 retires a human-made scientific package after technical deprecation by preserving reproducibility and transferring migration duties; Proposal 3 recognizes disturbance-caused ecological loss without imposing finality and connects that recognition to monitoring, restoration, archival, and support obligations."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 establishes an ending and use boundary for an obsolete artifact; Proposal 4 governs an active synthesis by repeatedly surfacing component boundaries and ensuring limitations propagate into current claims and graphics."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 addresses post-event loss fragmented across scientific records, affected experience, and material response through witnessing and bounded lament; Proposal 4 addresses pre-release epistemic compression through layered boundary enactment, nonassenting acknowledgment, and disclosure control."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's defining governed cycle: explicit meaning, marked recurrence or trigger, legitimate standing, voluntary and plural participation, interpretable symbolic enactment, material closure, memory, feedback, repair, and retirement. Each addresses a different environmental-climate failure state with a different concrete intervention and causal path. Shared safeguards and archetype mechanisms do not collapse the proposals into variants because their affected objectives, operative sequences, authoritative follow-through, and hypothesized mediators are materially different."}