{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C001","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The benefit-identity registry may falsely classify complementary contributions as duplicates, making the apparent reconciliation gain depend on contestable attribution rules.","rationale":"Duplicate benefits and shared-capacity conflicts are consequential portfolio defects, and sponsor rivalry is directly implicated rather than decorative. The eight-proposal shadow reconstruction is unusually bounded, reversible, and decision-relevant, with reviewer agreement, ranking sensitivity, and evidence that existing review already resolves overlaps serving as credible falsifiers. The full prospective tender is administratively heavy, but the retrospective study can determine whether that complexity is warranted."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"Holdout stability and reproducibility may select a robust proxy without establishing that it defensibly represents resource consumption, leaving the central allocation judgment unresolved.","rationale":"A single allocation rule creates genuine distributive rivalry, and the proposal tightly governs sponsor conflicts, data access, model construction, and temporary winner power. Its closed-year shadow tournament is authorized and capable of rejecting the intervention through unstable rankings, failed reproduction, sponsor-benefit dominance, or feasible direct tracing. Strict potential is moderated because allocation-driver choice is partly normative and causal, while the proposed scoring measures may reward predictiveness and stability without validating the intended consumption relationship."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":75,"causal_archetype_fit":66,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":79,"deployability_complexity":57,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":58,"empirical_partner_potential":80,"scrutiny_priority":68,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formal competition for audit mandates could impair independence or chill candid escalation even if mandatory reporting is nominally separated from the challenge.","rationale":"Finding inflation, evidence hoarding, and remediation burden are plausible concerns, but the proposal has not yet established that rivalry for lead mandates materially causes them rather than engagement mix, specialization, or ordinary quality variation. The retrospective replay is carefully bounded and can test replication reliability and strategic markers, giving it partner value. Prospective deployment remains difficult because career competition, protected reporting, quality assurance, and mandate allocation may not be separable in practice."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":81,"causal_archetype_fit":81,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":75,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"Awarding scarce early review to already high-readiness units may direct specialist capacity away from the riskiest or least-ready packages that most need intervention.","rationale":"Premature readiness declarations, exception transfers, and reviewer rework form a concrete and measurable queue problem, and the one-close shadow replay offers a strong, low-risk partner study. Hidden sampling, protected escalation, and post-close validation make the claim falsifiable. Strict potential is constrained by a possible mismatch between contest success and the operational purpose of review capacity: readiness may merit recognition without being the right basis for scarce risk-review priority."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals provide unusually safe retrospective first steps, so the main separator is causal alignment. A most directly tests whether governed rivalry corrects a consequential portfolio failure; B is strong but must bridge predictive model performance to defensible cost causation; D has excellent partner testability but a potentially misdirected prize; C carries the greatest risk that creating the arena would distort the protected professional objective.","confidence":"HIGH"}