{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C002","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":46,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"The core package—held-out scenarios, safety gates, reproducibility audits, resource limits, and staged hardware-in-the-loop validation—looks vulnerable to being substantially present in existing flight-control downselect practice, leaving only a narrow contrastive remainder.","rationale":"The problem is consequential and the rivalry mechanism is genuinely causal: visible evaluation rewards benchmark specialization while scarce integration capacity forces selection. The proposal is exceptionally bounded and safe at first step, with explicit configurations, gates, metrics, baseline, stopping rules, and decision-relevant falsifiers. Its main weakness is prior-art vulnerability and transfer: an offline shadow contest can test rank stability, but the most important claim still depends on later hardware-in-the-loop and human evidence."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":70,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"A formally open interface and successful synthetic plugfest may not establish practical replaceability under certification constraints, undocumented timing behavior, operational loads, and incumbent-influenced future interface evolution.","rationale":"This proposal targets a concrete winner-power failure in which success in the current contest can control future entrants, making the archetype central rather than decorative. The intervention links procurement rules to behavioral interoperability, separated conformance ownership, migration performance, and reopening. Its isolated bench study is authorized, reversible, and capable of changing whether a procurement pilot proceeds. Governance is elaborate, but the decisive uncertainties—independent implementation, undocumented dependencies, and replacement effort—are unusually accessible to a willing fleet and laboratory partner."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":80,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":58,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"Mock or retrospectively elicited credit bids may not represent real operational urgency or strategic behavior, so the proposed replay could validate sequencing arithmetic without validating the live incentive mechanism.","rationale":"The queue-occupation and premature-readiness problem is plausible, observable, and directly produced by rivalry for scarce departure positions. Gate holding, verified readiness, finite credits, bonds, protected baseline access, and controller supremacy form a coherent bounded design. However, priority credits introduce difficult normalization, distributional, confidentiality, and gaming questions. The retrospective study is safe and useful for feasibility, but its artificial bids cannot decisively resolve live truthfulness, coordination, or behavioral adaptation, weakening both strict and partner lanes."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":53,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":93,"deployability_complexity":75,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"Shop-level reliability rankings may be dominated by case-mix, service-exposure, installation, troubleshooting, censoring, and rare-event attribution rather than repair quality, making performance-based reallocation unstable or contestable.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a recurring, economically and safety-relevant procurement problem with identifiable operator records and a highly reversible retrospective first study. Matched lots, noncompensable compliance gates, delayed outcome scoring, warranty responsibility, and multi-shop allocation tightly connect rivalry to lifecycle performance. A motivated operator could test the central uncertainty with existing data and use sensitivity across predeclared matching specifications to make a prospective-pilot decision. Scrutiny is warranted despite strong vulnerability to conventional performance-based contracting, multisourcing, and warranty practice, because the serial-level attribution and recurring allocation combination remains empirically testable."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"B and D offer the strongest partner-ready paths: each has a real institutional owner, a reversible study, and evidence that can change a bounded next decision. B leads because winner control over future competition makes the archetype especially essential and the bench can directly test replaceability. A is technically rigorous but more exposed to known-looking validation practice and requires later higher-fidelity evidence. C is the most behaviorally distinctive but has the weakest bridge from retrospective mock bidding to live incentive effects.","confidence":"HIGH"}