{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C006","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":75,"deployability_complexity":65,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":80,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"A highest-price award may still select an overoptimistic distributor whose nominal compliance and security do not produce timely, meaningful exploitation after the valuable release window passes.","rationale":"The proposal tightly couples a genuine exclusive-rights contest to release floors, security, reversion, asset preservation, and bounded authority. Its dry run and narrow-license pilot are unusually concrete and reversible. However, much of the package resembles established procurement and licensing safeguards, and the first-price mechanism remains in tension with the multidimensional objective it is meant to serve."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":60,"causal_archetype_fit":67,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":57,"operational_specificity":86,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":57,"empirical_partner_potential":70,"scrutiny_priority":59,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposal may manufacture a rivalry problem by institutionalizing parallel competitive edits where sequential or collaborative editing would avoid duplicated labor, damaged trust, and unstable aesthetic scoring.","rationale":"The paid dry run is bounded, safe, and capable of testing reviewer stability, labor leakage, and feasibility. Yet the underlying practice appears less clearly necessary or consequential than the other candidates, and the archetype may create rather than govern the central rivalry. Even under equal inputs, subjective authorship and prior footage familiarity could dominate the formal controls."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":90,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"Splitting work across vendors may add integration, supervision, and consistency costs large enough to overwhelm the benefits of portability and continued competition.","rationale":"This addresses a consequential procurement problem with clear strategic behavior, downstream externalities, and incumbent lock-in. Tranches, multiple viable awards, a production-controlled asset floor, and challenger windows make rivalry causally central rather than decorative. A production can test the decisive uncertainties on non-critical shots using concrete portability, delivery, labor, and integration measures, though implementation is technically and administratively demanding."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":59,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":81,"biggest_visible_risk":"Portfolio criteria and threshold judgments may provide a documented but still highly discretionary cover for favoritism while adding enough screening burden to reduce substantive attention.","rationale":"Scarce festival slots, campaign access, conflicts, and screening workload form a credible rivalry problem. The separation of procedural appeals from curatorial judgment, opt-in shadow pilot, workload caps, and audit sampling create a strong partner-study path with minimal effect on entrants. Its strict opportunity is weaker because standardized submissions, conflict controls, double review, and portfolio selection look comparatively vulnerable to nearby practice, and causal gains may be hard to separate from added bureaucracy."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually specific and reversible, so the main separation comes from problem credibility, archetype necessity, and whether a partner can resolve the core uncertainty. C combines the strongest structural problem with decision-changing field evidence; D has the safest and clearest shadow-study route; A is coherent but retains a price-versus-performance tension; B has the weakest case that a competitive arena should exist at all.","confidence":"HIGH"}