{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C001","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"Holdout stability and reconciliation may select a reproducible proxy without establishing that it defensibly represents resource consumption, while feasible direct tracing could eliminate the need for the contest.","rationale":"The distributive incentives around a single allocation basis are concrete, consequential, and tightly linked to rivalry. The closed-year shadow tournament is unusually bounded, reversible, and capable of rejecting the intervention through reconciliation failures, unstable rankings, sponsor-benefit dominance, or direct-metering feasibility. Its integrated contest design is specific, but many components resemble model validation and accounting-control practices, and the composite score may embed unresolved value judgments about causal linkage."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":74,"causal_archetype_fit":77,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":67,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":64,"empirical_partner_potential":81,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"Turning assurance work into a competition for career-relevant mandates could impair auditor independence or candid escalation even if the formal challenge is separated from reporting and personnel decisions.","rationale":"The proposal identifies observable gaming routes and offers a careful retrospective replay, but its central premise—that finding production materially governs scarce lead assignments—requires substantial partner evidence. Engagement heterogeneity may dominate the proposed score, and reproducibility can undervalue emerging systemic risks. The protected domains and shadow-first authorization make study possible, yet live deployment would face unusually serious professional-governance and behavioral hazards."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":93,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":93,"biggest_visible_risk":"The benefit-identity registry may mistake complementary contributions for duplicate claims, creating false precision and materially changing portfolio rankings through contestable attribution rules.","rationale":"Fixed funding and implementation capacity create clear strategic interdependence, while duplicated benefits and hidden shared dependencies are consequential and directly observable. Marginal portfolio scoring is causally central rather than decorative, and the eight-proposal retrospective reconstruction can test reviewer agreement, ranking sensitivity, unreconciled benefits, and whether existing review already solves the problem. The intervention is bounded and deployable, although its tender, assurance, and portfolio-control elements look vulnerable to being characterized as an integrated version of familiar investment-governance practices."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":81,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"Competition for early review could encourage delayed disclosure or concealment of difficult issues, and protected escalation rules may not fully neutralize that incentive.","rationale":"Close rework, premature readiness declarations, and exception transfers are measurable and important, and the retrospective sampled replay offers a safe partner study with clear stopping conditions. However, early review capacity may be better allocated by current risk and need than by prior competitive readiness, so the scarce-prize mechanism is less clearly essential than in the leading proposals. The arena also resembles an elaborated readiness-control and risk-triage process, leaving a comparatively fragile contrastive claim."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and A present the strongest combination of consequential rivalry, decision-changing retrospective evidence, and reversible authority. D is an attractive empirical-partner study but has a weaker case that competition should govern scarce review capacity. B is testable in shadow form, yet its uncertain behavioral premise and independence risks substantially reduce strict potential.","confidence":"HIGH"}