{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C003","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":54,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":81,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":67,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"The distinguishing package may collapse under scrutiny into familiar qualified best-value procurement, total-cost normalization, split awards, surety, and contract monitoring rather than preserve a meaningful contrastive claim.","rationale":"The cost-shifting, selective-stream, and incumbent-lock-in problem is credible, and rivalry is causally central to the award failure. The rules, actors, authority boundaries, and retrospective comparison are unusually concrete. A consortium could test bid normalization, residual attribution, concentration, and ranking sensitivity using completed records, although the shadow study cannot establish how suppliers would respond to a live redesigned tender."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":95,"deployability_complexity":83,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"A frozen composite score and held-out panel may substitute one gameable proxy system for proposal judgment, especially if historical records cannot emulate independent reproduction.","rationale":"A genuinely scarce pilot slot creates direct rivalry, and the intervention targets the stated failure modes with coded replication, resource caps, staff reproduction, held-out validation, bounded spillover accounting, and expiring awards. One facility has identifiable authority, data, and incentives to run the reversible shadow study. The study can change an allocation-design decision by testing reviewer agreement, rank sensitivity, guardrail effects, and whether simpler allocation methods perform equivalently."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":89,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":76,"adopter_partner_path":73,"deployability_complexity":49,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Catalyst, separation, reactor, and integration contributions may not admit stable ex ante module boundaries and verification thresholds, making the compact discretionary precisely where priority and credit matter most.","rationale":"The proposal tightly connects scarce priority, credit, and integration roles to secrecy, acceleration, duplication, and blocking control. Confidential timestamps, near-simultaneous credit sharing, modular rewards, and nonexclusive access form a comparatively distinctive causal package. Scrutiny is warranted because a consortium could retrospectively test whether modules, timestamps, caps, and credit rules are reproducible, but live adoption faces substantial IP coordination and the retrospective exercise cannot fully test behavioral responses."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":55,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":81,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposal requires simultaneous control over sampling, reserves, ranking, promotion, ratings, disputes, portability, and competition remedies, so a marketplace partner may be unable to isolate or deploy the claimed mechanism as a bounded intervention.","rationale":"Lot-specific misrepresentation and shifted rejection costs are consequential, while continuous competition for attention and orders makes the archetype essential. Shipment-linked retain samples and claim-specific disputes provide a clear causal core, and platform records could support a useful shadow analysis of traceability, exposure, reserves, and rating corrections. Its breadth, dependence on marketplace authority, and resemblance of several components to ordinary marketplace, quality-assurance, and escrow controls increase scrutiny risk."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals provide unusually safe, reversible shadow studies, but those studies mainly test rule applicability and counterfactual rankings rather than live strategic response. Candidate B offers the cleanest bounded partner experiment and strongest causal match; Candidate C merits early scrutiny for its more distinctive claim despite higher specification and adoption risk. Candidates D and A address highly credible problems, but their broad bundles are more vulnerable to decomposition into standard governance practices.","confidence":"HIGH"}