{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__nanotechnology","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, triggers, script, roles, consent and accessibility paths, ordinary-system closure, authority limits, rollback, falsifiers, comparison evidence, memory, audit, repair, and retirement. It faithfully uses recurring symbolic enactment to make continuous nanomaterial custody obligations collectively visible and behaviorally accountable."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally covers case consent, cadence, marked setting, three-scene reenactment, plural participation, repository closure, governance, safety, testing, drift review, repair, and retirement. Its ritual cycle preserves the meaning and reasoning of failed or ambiguous experiments, a distinct epistemic-memory objective."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines stakeholder standing, compensation, consent, nested-ring choreography, witnessed translation, requirements-system closure, durable dissent, authority boundaries, falsifiers, audit, repair, and retirement. It faithfully renews affected-party commitments by symbolically carrying downstream consequences inward to constrain design."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies output-gate recurrence, contributor consent, reverse lineage reconstruction, witnessing, formal-policy boundaries, actionable closure, correction rights, testing, audit, repair, and retirement. It faithfully turns otherwise compressed contribution meaning into repeated recognition and review commitments without claiming to settle authorship."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses discontinuous custody and containment obligations by circulating a token along a material lifecycle; proposal 2 addresses loss of negative-result reasoning by reenacting an expectation-observation-decision case around an empty holder, producing epistemic boundary records."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 renews internal operational ownership of physical nanomaterials at custody points; proposal 3 renews affected-party standing by translating household, operator, and watershed consequences inward into prospective filter requirements."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 follows matter forward through custody stages to prevent stranded safety and disposal duties; proposal 4 reconstructs a research output backward through human contribution layers to prevent omission and preserve claim-review standing."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 preserves interpretations of failed, null, and ambiguous experiments through case reenactment and repository actions; proposal 3 preserves external stakeholder influence through cross-scale consequence translation and design-requirement commitments."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 centers what an unsuccessful experiment taught and carries its epistemic boundaries into future work; proposal 4 centers who contributed to an output and carries recognition, correction, and claim-review rights into dissemination. Their narrative devices and practical outputs are different."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 links affected communities and operators to prospective product-design obligations through nested consequence rings; proposal 4 links research contributors to retrospective output lineage, attribution actions, and review rights through transparent production layers."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's defining governed cycle: explicit and contestable meaning, recurring marked enactment, legitimate and exitable participation, symbolic and embodied performance, practical follow-through, durable memory, feedback, drift detection, repair, and retirement. Shared archetypal safeguards and mechanisms do not collapse the opportunities: the portfolio targets four different failures—material custody, negative-evidence memory, affected-party design accountability, and contribution lineage—and uses different symbolic interventions and causal paths to produce different ordinary-system consequences. All six pairs therefore satisfy problem, intervention, and causal-path independence."}