{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C007","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":83,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"Equal fixed warrants may suppress legitimate bursts of signals while teams evade the constraint through bundling or informal executive escalation.","rationale":"The proposal tightly connects attention rivalry and scarce verification capacity to a bounded warrant mechanism, protected priority registration, portfolio selection, and protected mandatory channels. Its no-stakes replay is unusually safe and decision-relevant, although it tests queue composition more directly than real behavioral adaptation or missed-signal effects."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":56,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":78,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"The design may amount to an elaborate, known-looking proposal-selection process whose resource caps and anti-collusion machinery cost more than the redundancy they prevent.","rationale":"Scarce rehearsal slots and pitch-driven selection make the problem credible, and the retrospective comparison offers a bounded partner study. However, masked judging, fixed rubrics, portfolio selection, audits, and appeals resemble conventional governed procurement or challenge selection, leaving a relatively vulnerable contrastive claim and substantial administrative burden for only three awards."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":93,"deployability_complexity":63,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"The fund-controlled common layer may encode incumbent assumptions or exceed the fund's maintenance capacity, reproducing lock-in under the appearance of interoperability.","rationale":"This is the most consequential and structurally concrete problem: incumbent control of essential infrastructure directly weakens recurring rivalry and makes switching unsafe. The shared layer, funded shadow lane, audited displacement threshold, and transition bond form a coherent remedy, while an offline two-provider exercise can resolve key portability and reproducibility uncertainties. The main deductions are high implementation and procurement complexity and vulnerability to prior art in modular procurement, interoperability, dual sourcing, and shadow operation."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":62,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":76,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":74,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"A short microseason cannot validate selection for long-range forecasting, because the questions that resolve quickly enough to score may not represent the strategic uncertainties the council exists to address.","rationale":"Balanced compulsory assignments, sealed forecasts, equal resources, proper scoring, audits, and rotating seats directly address the stated leaderboard gaming mechanisms. The league is specific and safely pilotable, but forecasting tournaments and promotion systems look prior-art-vulnerable, and the mismatch between long-range usefulness and timely outcome resolution weakens the decisive test."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and A merit first scrutiny for complementary reasons: C offers the strongest consequential empirical-partner case, while A has the most resilient-looking strict contrast. D is causally clean but faces a long-horizon validation problem; B is credible and partner-friendly but most vulnerable to collapsing into standard governed selection practice.","confidence":"HIGH"}