{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C001","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":69,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The elaborate tender may add little beyond competent portfolio governance if existing committees already reconcile overlapping benefits, dependencies, and capacity constraints.","rationale":"Duplicate benefit claims under a fixed transformation envelope are consequential and make sponsor rivalry causally relevant. Benefit identities, marginal portfolio scoring, and lifecycle ownership form a specific intervention, while the eight-proposal shadow reconstruction is unusually safe, bounded, and capable of rejecting the premise. Vulnerability comes from resemblance to mature portfolio-assurance practice and from difficulty distinguishing duplicate claims from complementary contributions."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":77,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposal may manufacture a competitive incentive around close readiness when ordinary risk-based queue management and capacity constraints better explain the observed failures.","rationale":"Scarce specialist review capacity and strategic self-certification create a credible rivalry mechanism, and the retrospective four-unit replay offers a strong partner-resolvable test. Protected escalation and nonbinding first steps reduce accounting risk. However, an arena around financial-close priority could intensify concealment or delay, and much of the design resembles enhanced readiness verification layered onto conventional risk triage."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":80,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":74,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"Holdout stability and usage-linkage scores may select a reproducible proxy without establishing that it defensibly represents resource consumption or future causal cost behavior.","rationale":"The single allocation standard creates direct zero-sum interdependence, so rivalry governance is essential rather than decorative. Full-pool reconciliation, governed data, blinded holdouts, sponsor-benefit analysis, independent reproduction, and common future access tightly address the identified manipulation routes. The closed-year, nonstatutory shadow tournament has clear authority, rollback, and decision-changing falsifiers, making both strict and partner lanes strong despite uncertainty about whether proxy quality has a sufficiently objective ground truth."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":72,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":87,"falsifiability_test_quality":83,"adopter_partner_path":80,"deployability_complexity":58,"authority_safety_reversibility":88,"strict_potential":64,"empirical_partner_potential":79,"scrutiny_priority":69,"biggest_visible_risk":"Even a nominally separate assurance contest could chill candid escalation or compromise perceived auditor independence by linking risk hypotheses to scarce career-enhancing mandates.","rationale":"Finding inflation, evidence hoarding, and competition for scarce lead roles are plausible, and the retrospective workpaper replay is bounded enough to test them. The design carefully excludes mandatory and urgent reporting, but its core intervention still risks entangling assurance judgment with competitive rewards. Engagement heterogeneity also threatens score comparability, while replication may systematically undervalue novel systemic risks and reward documentation style."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and A most clearly make rivalry causally central and pair it with decision-relevant, reversible shadow studies. B remains a strong empirical-partner candidate but may reduce to improved queue verification. D has a testable premise, yet its prospective intervention carries the portfolio's greatest intrinsic risk because competition can undermine the assurance function it aims to improve.","confidence":"HIGH"}