{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C006","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":66,"causal_archetype_fit":74,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":81,"adopter_partner_path":67,"deployability_complexity":64,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":73,"scrutiny_priority":70,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposal may be governing an uncommon or artificially induced rivalry: producers can often obtain editorial variation through sequential or collaborative workflows without creating a contest for final-cut stewardship.","rationale":"The arena, resource caps, anonymized review, appeals, safeguards, and reversible paid dry run are unusually concrete. The proposed test could expose unreliable scoring, hidden labor, or failure to predict completion. However, the underlying unmanaged-rivalry problem is less clearly prevalent or consequential than the procurement and festival cases, and the competitive intervention may itself create duplicated labor and damaged relationships. Its contrastive contribution is vulnerable because paid edit tests and controlled sample-cut comparisons could absorb much of the design."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":70,"authority_safety_reversibility":89,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Splitting VFX work and repeatedly reopening tranches may create integration, visual-consistency, and supervision costs greater than the lock-in and lowballing harms it is intended to reduce.","rationale":"This addresses a consequential procurement problem with clear strategic interaction: lowballing, capacity misrepresentation, asset custody, labor externalization, and incumbent leverage. The archetype is causally central, and the combined design—normalized tenders, viable multiple awards, a production-controlled asset floor, challenger windows, and realized-performance review—supports a meaningful contrastive claim. The non-critical-shot pilot is authorized, bounded, and capable of changing the scale-or-retire decision through delivery, portability, integration, and labor evidence. Complexity and resemblance to established procurement and interoperability practices are the main scrutiny vulnerabilities."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":75,"adopter_partner_path":69,"deployability_complexity":60,"authority_safety_reversibility":86,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":72,"scrutiny_priority":76,"biggest_visible_risk":"Selecting solely by the highest compliant minimum guarantee may remain poorly coupled to actual release effort, promotion, and audience reach even after capability floors, security, and reversion terms are imposed.","rationale":"The scarce exclusive license and strategic bidder behavior make the rivalry archetype essential, while bounded rights, common information, ownership disclosure, performance security, reversion, and preserved assets directly address warehousing and lock-in. Authority boundaries and rollback rules are strong. Yet many elements resemble conventional auction qualification and distribution-contract protections, and a tabletop mainly tests rule operability rather than the decisive price-to-performance mechanism. A real pilot would be legally and commercially harder to authorize, and automatic reversion may occur too late to recover the valuable release window."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The portfolio stage may reintroduce broad curatorial discretion under the language of coverage and complementarity, making favoritism difficult to distinguish from legitimate slate construction.","rationale":"Unequal campaign access, hidden conflicts, screening overload, and inconsistent exceptions are credible problems in a genuinely scarce selection arena. Standardized inputs, random double assignment, workload caps, divergence review, threshold-before-portfolio selection, process-only appeals, and audit sampling form a coherent and deployable intervention. The opt-in shadow pilot is especially attractive to a festival partner because it is reversible and measures operational uncertainties without altering official outcomes. Prior-art vulnerability is material—conflict policies, no-contact rules, multi-reader review, and slate curation look familiar—but the integrated separation of procedural equality, individual qualification, and portfolio contribution may preserve a useful contrastive claim."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"B and D deserve first scrutiny through complementary lanes: B has the strongest consequential structural claim and a decision-relevant production pilot, while D offers the clearest low-risk empirical-partner path. C is important but commercially harder to test and more exposed to standard auction-and-contract prior art. A is exceptionally well bounded yet depends on a less clearly prevalent rivalry that the intervention may partly manufacture.","confidence":"HIGH"}