{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C005","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":70,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":57,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":72,"adopter_partner_path":70,"deployability_complexity":49,"authority_safety_reversibility":87,"strict_potential":65,"empirical_partner_potential":71,"scrutiny_priority":67,"biggest_visible_risk":"The governed rivalry may add little decision value beyond a well-designed common-garden trial while requiring long observation periods that still fail to represent mature forest interactions.","rationale":"The proposal addresses consequential source-selection and concentration risks with unusually explicit resource equalization, portfolio selection, containment, and rollback rules. Its contained first stage is authorized and informative, but the decisive claims require ecological time horizons and field interactions that the proposed microplot evidence may not capture. The design is also visibly close to established experimental provenance testing and portfolio-oriented restoration practice, making its remaining contrastive claim comparatively narrow."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":54,"operational_specificity":86,"falsifiability_test_quality":69,"adopter_partner_path":68,"deployability_complexity":43,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":75,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"The auction depends on legally and hydrologically defensible net-consumption lots, yet return flows, protected rights, and ecological floors may be too uncertain or constrained for a genuine contestable remainder.","rationale":"Scarcity, strategic reservation, and spillover-producing rivalry are causally central, and the proposal sharply bounds protected uses before competition. Its shadow auction is safe and could expose measurement and allocation sensitivity, but nonbinding retrospective bids cannot validate binding behavior, market power, or distributional effects. Water auctions, scarcity pricing, and transfer controls are known-looking design territory, while operational adoption faces substantial legal, hydrologic, and political complexity."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The package may largely restate mature benchmark-governance practices, leaving complementarity-based ensemble selection and resource accounting as a narrower contrastive contribution than presented.","rationale":"The proposal has the cleanest causal match: strategic teams compete for scarce operational status, and sealed evaluation, reproducibility audits, compute limits, portfolio scoring, and recurring access directly constrain distorted routes to winning. A forecasting service can run the specified archived shadow replay without operational consequences, and the outcomes can decisively change whether the tournament design advances. Compute-boundary evasion and imperfect archival reconstruction remain concerns, but they are directly testable within a willing partner engagement."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":65,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":81,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"Portfolio results may be dominated by contestable hydrologic assumptions and value weights, producing an opaque or unstable ranking rather than a reproducibly better basin-wide allocation.","rationale":"The proposal targets a serious connected-system failure in project-by-project grant competition and makes portfolio marginality, exported risk, common stress tests, and concentration controls central rather than decorative. Its retrospective shadow replay is safe, partner-feasible, and capable of falsifying the intervention through sensitivity, evaluator agreement, and observed-outcome comparisons. Prior-art vulnerability is meaningful because basin planning, portfolio optimization, and multi-criteria grant design are familiar, but the integrated governed-contest contrast remains sufficiently concrete to merit early scrutiny."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and D offer the strongest scrutiny targets because both pair structurally credible rivalry failures with safe retrospective partner studies that can materially reject or refine the design. B addresses the most acute scarcity problem but faces foundational legal and measurement feasibility issues, while A is careful and safe yet slower to validate and more vulnerable to collapsing into conventional experimental forestry practice.","confidence":"HIGH"}