{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C002","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":63,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":83,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"Certification, safety, and accumulated integration dependencies may make replacement gateways impractical even when interfaces, test tools, and migration artifacts are contractually open.","rationale":"The proposal targets consequential platform lock-in and makes rivalry design causally central through independent interoperability testing, separated conformance ownership, migration security, and reopening. Its synthetic bench study is unusually bounded and decision-relevant. The main weaknesses are the institutional complexity of coordinating procurement, engineering, competition, and regulatory authorities and the possibility that aircraft-specific assurance costs overwhelm nominal contestability."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":76,"adopter_partner_path":62,"deployability_complexity":56,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":75,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"Priority-credit bids may reveal airline network preferences rather than system-wide or passenger urgency, while retrospective mock bids cannot establish how operators would behave under real repeated incentives.","rationale":"The queue-occupation mechanism is coherent, and gate holding, verified readiness, finite credits, protected baseline access, and controller supremacy form a bounded contest. The read-only replay is very safe, but it cannot decisively test strategic adaptation, and a prospective pilot would require difficult coordination among air traffic control, the airport, and competing airlines. Objective alignment is also less secure than in the other proposals."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":59,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":81,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"Hidden simulation cases may share the same invalid modeling assumptions as public cases and therefore select a seemingly robust portfolio that does not transfer to hardware-in-the-loop or human evaluation.","rationale":"Benchmark gaming is a credible rivalry failure, and the proposal tightly couples advancement to held-out performance, safety gates, reproduction, resource limits, and preservation of design diversity. An internal aircraft program could run the offline study with little operational exposure, and the tests can change a downselection decision. Its chief scrutiny vulnerability is that hidden testing, auditing, and staged portfolio advancement look close to established challenge and assurance practices, leaving less room for a meaningful contrastive claim."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"Confounding, censoring, and disputed causal attribution of repeat removals may make shop rankings unstable under reasonable case-matching choices and too delayed to guide recurring allocation.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential and readily observable procurement failure and makes repeated rivalry essential through matched allocation, delayed outcome scoring, secured warranty responsibility, multiple awards, and challenger access. An operator with serial-level repair records can conduct the authorized retrospective study without affecting maintenance decisions, and sensitivity across matching specifications provides a strong decision test. Although several components resemble performance-based contracting, the combined unit-level lifecycle and portfolio-allocation contrast is concrete enough to merit first scrutiny."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"D has the clearest empirical-partner path and a consequential decision tied to existing operator data. A offers the strongest contestability-focused strict opportunity but faces substantial certification and governance complexity. C is highly testable and deployable yet especially vulnerable to looking like standard held-out benchmark governance. B is structurally thoughtful and safe to replay, but its retrospective evidence cannot resolve the central incentive and objective-alignment uncertainties as cleanly.","confidence":"HIGH"}