{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__film_media_production","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, observable failure, milestone cadence, consent and authority boundaries, symbolic sequence, practical assignments, records, falsifiers, audit, repair, and retirement. It faithfully converts dispersed contributor obligations into a recurring, governed editorial enactment whose witnessed renewal leads to owners, holds, and corrective action."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies the approved signal, safe states, rotating caller, department responses, restart authority, reporting, halt conditions, evidence, and retirement. It faithfully embodies an abstract stop-work commitment through a marked, repeatable, consent-aware performance linked to formal hazard disposition rather than treating ceremony as safety control."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies motif selection, provenance and standing review, origin-beat reenactment, plural participation, creative authority, craft assignments, memory transfer, falsifiers, and retirement. It faithfully uses recurring symbolic reenactment and governed renewal to carry contestable story meaning across production turnover."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies consented roster preparation, provisional display, rotating witnesses, evidentiary status, private correction, authoritative claim routing, stewardship handoff, audit, and final transfer or retirement. It faithfully makes labor memory socially legible through bounded recognition while preventing ritual acknowledgment from creating credit or compensation rights."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses contributor obligations lost during editorial revision through cut-milestone recall, contestation, and assignment; proposal 2 addresses uncertainty about crew stop-work standing through rotating invocation and embodied departmental stand-down responses."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 makes edits answerable to documented contributor-facing obligations; proposal 3 preserves a motif's contestable creative meaning through provenance-aware origin reenactment, plural craft interpretation, and cross-block stewardship."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 renews obligations owed to filmed contributors and routes them into edit changes or holds; proposal 4 reconstructs workforce attribution through a provisional credit roll, witnessed labor evidence, correction channels, and transfer to authorized credit processes."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 makes operational interruption authority socially enactable through a rehearsed call and coordinated safe-state uptake; proposal 3 maintains narrative meaning through reenactment, interpretation, provenance, and craft-decision handoff."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 targets hazard-escalation hesitation and conflicting stop responses; proposal 4 targets omissions and dependence on insider memory in labor attribution, using consented witnessing and evidentiary routing rather than operational rehearsal."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 governs continuity and contestability of an audience-facing motif through origin-beat reenactment and plural creative interpretation; proposal 4 governs production-labor memory through a provisional roll, contribution witnessing, correction, and credit-record handoff."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's defining governed cycle: explicit meaning, marked recurrence, legitimate and plural participation, symbolic enactment, witnessed recognition or renewal, practical follow-through, memory, feedback, repair, and retirement. Their common ritual safeguards reflect archetype invariants rather than duplication. Each pair differs simultaneously in the affected problem, domain intervention, and causal path, and each proposal can be adopted without the others."}