{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__futurism_foresight","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, observable failure, recurring script, authority boundaries, executable closure, falsifiers, safeguards, audit, retirement, and a bounded pilot. It faithfully uses governed symbolic re-enactment to reconnect scenario commitments to practical decisions and occupies the distinct opportunity of active transit-preparedness commitment continuity."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies contributor choices, provenance artifacts, repository execution, witnesses, authority limits, rollback, falsifiers, and a bounded pilot. It faithfully enacts recurring, consent-aware return and renewal, while distinctly addressing continuing custody and permission over contributed futures material."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies retirement triggers, provenance reconstruction, a marked release sequence, repository and dependency actions, safeguards, falsifiers, and a bounded pilot. It faithfully implements ritualized repair and deconsecration and uniquely targets the residual social authority of superseded scenarios."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies scan boundaries, plural participation, source protection, reciprocal dispositions, stewardship transfer, executable closure, falsifiers, and a bounded pilot. It faithfully renews collective watchfulness through a governed recurring observance and distinctly addresses erosion of distributed scanning attention and relationships."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 renews institutional action-owner obligations before capital decisions through witnessed renew-revise-release choices and an action ledger; proposal 2 returns standing to contributors through custody choices and repository permission changes."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 preserves active scenario-linked preparations by recurring recommitment; proposal 3 ends a superseded scenario's informal authority through critical historical reenactment, symbolic discharge, archival relabeling, and dependency transfer."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses decay of already-defined operational commitments at formal decision points; proposal 4 sustains distributed attention before observations become scenarios or actions through reciprocal signal disposition and voluntary renewal of scan-boundary stewardship."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 governs contributor permission and provenance for community-authored material through custody return; proposal 3 governs institutional retirement of an obsolete analytical artifact through release, memory preservation, and downstream dependency reassignment."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 repairs continuing rights and obligations attached to stored contributions by changing permissions and custody status; proposal 4 repairs one-way horizon-scanning relationships and nominal perimeter coverage by returning dispositions and renewing observation responsibilities, without transferring artifact custody."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 removes authority from a mature, superseded scenario through a triggered closing rite; proposal 4 sustains an ongoing network's capacity to notice weak signals through a monthly vigil, plural interpretation, reciprocal feedback, and stewardship handoff."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's defining governed cycle: explicit meaning, recurring or event-triggered symbolic enactment, legitimate and optional participation, practical follow-through, memory, feedback, repair, and retirement. Although they reuse structural safeguards required by the common archetype, their affected problems, enacted interventions, operative objects, authorities, and causal paths are materially different: active commitments, contributor custody, superseded-scenario authority, and distributed watch stewardship. All six pairs therefore represent independently adoptable opportunities."}