{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C007","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":74,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":75,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":77,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposal may overengineer a subjective scenario-selection problem, with portfolio complementarity and hidden-perturbation scoring introducing discretion that cannot reliably distinguish better scenarios.","rationale":"The proposal is unusually bounded, procedurally complete, reversible, and paired with a strong retrospective test. Rivalry is genuinely relevant because teams compete for three scarce rehearsal slots. Its weakness is that the claimed failure of executive selection is asserted more than demonstrated, while several mechanisms resemble familiar blinded review, portfolio selection, audit, and appeal practices. The decisive uncertainty—whether the arena improves complementarity and decision learning without excessive burden or rubric gaming—is partner-testable."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":80,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":83,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"Equal nomination warrants may suppress genuine clusters of consequential signals or drive teams to bundle claims and bypass the registry through informal escalation channels.","rationale":"This identifies a credible congestion-and-attention problem in which strategic submissions externalize verification costs, making governed rivalry causally central. The warrant mechanism, priority registry, provenance requirements, portfolio allocation, and protected mandatory-reporting channels form a specific and meaningful contrast. A historical or synthetic replay can directly reveal omissions, evasion, duplicate handling, reviewer reliability, and channel-classification errors. Live deployment would still require evidence that quotas do not create missed-signal risk."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":57,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The central intervention closely resembles established forecasting-tournament design, leaving the contrastive opportunity vulnerable even if the implementation is sound.","rationale":"The scarce council seats make rivalry essential, and balanced assignments, sealed forecasts, proper scoring, resource equality, audits, and rotating access directly address the stated gaming routes. The no-stakes microseason is safe and can falsify key feasibility assumptions about assignment balance, resolution, normalization, and seal integrity. The main reason to scrutinize it after B is its high text-only vulnerability to known-looking tournament, calibration, and promotion practices, plus the unresolved question of whether sealed individual performance predicts useful council contribution."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":96,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":96,"deployability_complexity":81,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":92,"empirical_partner_potential":96,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"The fund-controlled common layer may encode incumbent assumptions and recreate lock-in as a technical standard while imposing substantial maintenance and procurement burdens on the fund.","rationale":"This addresses a consequential and structurally credible lock-in problem with a clearly authorized adopter. Moving essential infrastructure outside the contest is causally central, while the funded shadow lane, audited comparison, transition bond, and recurring displacement window provide a concrete path beyond nominal recompeting. Several components look procurement- and interoperability-adjacent, but their coupling supports a meaningful contrastive claim. The offline two-provider exercise can decisively test portability, reproducibility, interface neutrality, onboarding burden, and whether displacement criteria are interpretable without risking live pension decisions."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually complete, safe, and testable; the ranking turns mainly on problem credibility and text-only prior-art vulnerability. D and B offer the strongest partner-resolvable structural uncertainties, C has excellent causal fit but a known-looking intervention family, and A has the most subjective objective and greatest risk of procedural overdesign.","confidence":"HIGH"}