{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C004","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":81,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":82,"falsifiability_test_quality":78,"adopter_partner_path":77,"deployability_complexity":48,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":67,"empirical_partner_potential":79,"scrutiny_priority":70,"biggest_visible_risk":"The many noisy, contestable components and boundary-attribution choices may make the composite ranking unstable or primarily reflective of conditions outside district control.","rationale":"The proposal addresses consequential, recognizable incentives around recorded-crime comparisons, and rivalry is causally central rather than decorative. Its retrospective shadow evaluation is unusually safe and reversible, with explicit sensitivity and reproducibility checks. However, reliable measurement of net harm, reporting access, enforcement burdens, and displaced effects is operationally demanding; defensible weighting choices may reverse rankings, weakening any strict contrastive claim."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Sealed benchmark performance may not transfer to heterogeneous operational devices and workflows, allowing benchmark-specific optimization to determine procurement.","rationale":"This is a tightly bounded scarce-selection problem in which vendor rivalry, demonstration gaming, and post-award lock-in are directly linked. The dry run specifies common reference images, independent operators, held-out reproduction, artifact-level outcomes, export review, and rollback without contract or case impact. Its components resemble mature procurement and validation practices, increasing prior-art vulnerability, but the combined claim remains concrete, deployable, and readily testable by an authorized consortium."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":81,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"Contest framing may reward challenge-packet tactics or aggressive defect calling rather than transferable improvement in routine forensic quality and disclosure behavior.","rationale":"The intervention directly reverses the stated incentive to maintain a clean-looking record, and it cleanly separates controlled rivalry from case, employment, and accreditation authority. The proposed matched-packet comparison against non-ranked review is the strongest decision-changing test in the set, measuring verified findings, false positives, calibration, leakage, and pressure under equal resources. The main uncertainty is whether the stated suppression incentive is substantial and whether synthetic performance generalizes, making this especially strong as an empirical-partner opportunity."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":77,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":67,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"Separating teams into competitors may deepen hypothesis commitment and strategic information withholding, worsening the tunnel vision the process is intended to reduce.","rationale":"The resource-allocation problem is highly consequential, and the proposal provides unusually explicit safeguards against treating advancement as guilt or investigative authority. Its masked retrospective crossover could test prediction quality, citation completeness, burdens, and panel agreement without live-case impact. Yet the archetype has an internal tension: structured rivalry may cause entrenchment and delayed sharing, while suitable masked cases, authorized participants, and comparable conference controls may be difficult to obtain."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"B offers the strongest strict lane through a bounded procurement decision and reproducible dry run; C is the strongest empirical-partner design and is a close second. D merits scrutiny for high stakes but has a sharper risk that rivalry aggravates the target failure. A addresses a serious problem with excellent first-step safety, but its measurement and attribution burden makes a stable decision rule less likely.","confidence":"HIGH"}