{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"ritualized_meaning_and_commitment_enactment__religious_studies_theology","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies actors, authority, triggers, consent and exit, sequence, practical closure, memory, audit, rollback, falsifiers, and a bounded pilot. It faithfully uses recurring symbolic enactment to turn dispersed community-defined interpretive obligations into witnessed re-consent and traceable research conduct."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally specifies nomination, standing review, sponsorship choices, status categories, artifact changes, archival handoff, reversal, safeguards, and evidence tests. It faithfully centers ritualized discharge and retirement: accumulated methodological counterevidence becomes explicit withdrawal or restriction of authorization and concrete deprecation of consortium-owned tools."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines response states, delegation authority, witnessed handoff, editorial consequences, controlled memory, audit, rollback, and successor-comprehension tests. It faithfully ritualizes bounded nonagreement so unresolved positions remain socially legible and constrain later joint attribution without requiring doctrinal convergence."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally defines custodian initiation, layered disclosure, accessible lament, delayed acceptance, funded work orders, authority limits, audit, repair, and falsification. It faithfully converts authorized remembrance of archival loss into a governed symbolic occasion followed by voluntary, custodian-controlled material stewardship."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 prevents community-defined interpretive obligations from disappearing during active research by renewing and assigning them; Proposal 2 addresses continued authorization of a discredited scholarly tool by withdrawing sponsorship, changing artifact status, and preserving the retirement rationale."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 renews actionable duties owed in community-engaged research, moving from prior corrections to owned fieldwork and publication checkpoints. Proposal 3 preserves unresolved intertradition positions, moving from plural response and witnessed nonclosure through steward transfer to limits on joint wording."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 repairs turnover-related loss of interpretive accountability in ongoing projects through recurrent re-consent. Proposal 4 addresses normalized archival absence through custodian-authorized lament, delayed consideration of capacity offers, and funded preservation work."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 resolves ambiguous institutional endorsement by restricting, superseding, or retiring an analytical tool and updating dependent artifacts. Proposal 3 intentionally maintains legitimate nonresolution, transferring custody of live disagreement and encoding attribution boundaries."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 acts on accumulated evidence that an interpretive instrument should lose or change authorization through ritualized deprecation. Proposal 4 responds to loss or withdrawal of archival relationships through acknowledgment, capacity mobilization, custodian consent, and stewardship of surviving materials."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 prevents editorial turnover from erasing unresolved theological or translational distinctions by handing off plural positions and publication rules. Proposal 4 prevents archival loss from becoming administratively invisible by carrying authorized absence into resourced preservation action."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals are operationally complete and preserve the archetype's defining governed cycle: explicit and contestable meaning, legitimate and optional participation, a marked recurring enactment, witnessed recognition or commitment, practical consequences, durable memory, feedback, repair, and retirement. Their recurring ritual scaffolding is shared by design, but their affected problems, interventions, and causal paths are materially different: renewing research obligations, retiring misleading methods, stewarding unresolved disagreement, and converting archival loss into preservation work. All six pairs therefore constitute independently adoptable opportunities."}