{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C003","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":58,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention may collapse under scrutiny into a sophisticated bundle of familiar procurement, hazardous-waste contracting, and supplier-contestability practices, leaving little meaningful contrastive claim.","rationale":"The scarce contract creates genuine rivalry, and the proposal tightly connects full-basket bidding, cost normalization, secured liability, portfolio awards, and transferable infrastructure to the identified gaming routes. Its retrospective shadow award is unusually authorized, reversible, reproducible, and capable of changing a procurement-design decision. The main weakness is that the bundle is operationally heavy and many elements look close to recognizable best-practice tender governance."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":68,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":52,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":75,"scrutiny_priority":71,"biggest_visible_risk":"Modules, thresholds, credit shares, and near-simultaneous windows may be impossible to specify before discovery without distorting the science or merely reallocating disputes.","rationale":"The proposal identifies credible rivalry-driven secrecy, duplication, unsafe acceleration, and blocking control, with provisional priority and modular rewards playing causally central roles. The paper simulation is safe and bounded, but it can reconstruct attribution more readily than establish that the compact would change disclosure, risk-taking, participation, or integration behavior. Live adoption also requires difficult multi-institutional IP consent and may repel contributors whose financing depends on exclusivity."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":94,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"The frozen composite score may encode contestable scientific judgments and produce a precise-looking ranking that is highly sensitive to weights or incomplete historical validation data.","rationale":"This is the cleanest bounded rivalry: multiple teams seek one genuinely scarce pilot slot, and standardized replication, held-out validation, equal resource credits, and spillover accounting directly constrain the stated winning strategies. The proposed retrospective comparison against committee review, lottery, and first-come baselines is safe, partner-feasible, and decision-relevant, with reviewer agreement and rank sensitivity explicitly measured. Although benchmark contests and blinded validation may have substantial prior-art exposure, the integrated claim remains crisp enough to scrutinize."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":59,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"Shipment-linked retained samples may not represent heterogeneous lots, undermining the core evidentiary bridge between frozen marketplace claims and delivered material.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential and structurally credible continuous rivalry in which attention, reputation, and shifted rejection costs can dominate faithful delivery. Lot passports, retained samples, transaction security, transparent visibility, reputation correction, and power review form a coherent causal bundle while preserving buyer choice. Its shadow study can test linkage gaps, exposure changes, reserve sensitivity, and rating corrections, though full deployment would impose substantial sampling, dispute, financial-security, and platform-governance complexity."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals present real rivalry structures, explicit authority limits, reversible retrospective studies, and unusually complete negative tests. C offers the sharpest bounded decision experiment; D has the broadest marketplace importance but greater operational complexity; A has excellent partner readiness but the greatest exposure to looking like established procurement practice; B is the most institutionally and scientifically fragile because its ex ante module architecture is itself a decisive uncertainty.","confidence":"HIGH"}