{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C008","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":70,"adopter_partner_path":63,"deployability_complexity":42,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":61,"empirical_partner_potential":70,"scrutiny_priority":65,"biggest_visible_risk":"The mock replay cannot establish that real publishers would express truthful, user-relevant priority through credits, while production deployment requires difficult operating-system control, publisher attribution, and ecosystem participation.","rationale":"The attention arms race is consequential, and finite slots, publisher aggregation, standardized salience, and credit expenditure make rivalry causally meaningful. The proposal is unusually bounded and safe at the first step, but the proposed evidence mainly tests rule coherence and participant preferences using fictitious issuers; it cannot validate the central issuer opportunity-cost signal or cap enforcement. Production complexity and the risk that this becomes elaborate notification ranking substantially weaken strict potential."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":56,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formal competition and serial scoring during an incident could delay critical evidence sharing or action, turning ordinary incident command and change control into a hazardous procedural bottleneck.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a high-consequence, observable conflict over scarce diagnostic and command capacity, and the expiring lease, independent hypothesis registration, rehearsal, and reopening triggers give the archetype real causal work. Its simulator study can directly test delays, lease violations, scorer agreement, rollback, and protected-action routing with a plausible organizational partner. Strict deployment remains uncertain because urgency, tacit expertise, and collaboration may resist a contest rubric, but that uncertainty is sharply partner-testable."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":80,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":58,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":75,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention may reduce to a well-governed comparative usability study or design bake-off, leaving little contrastive claim once standard experimentation controls are included.","rationale":"A scarce default slot and incumbent integration advantages create credible strategic dependence, while common tasks, resource caps, harm thresholds, reversible deployment, and challenger access are concrete and deployable. The shadow comparison can change a decision by showing whether arena rankings differ from click-and-speed rankings and whether reviewers can apply the rubric consistently. Its main weakness is prior-art vulnerability: much of the package resembles mature experimentation, procurement, and UX evaluation governance."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"Portfolio scoring may encode incomplete sponsor assumptions about valuable accessibility coverage and systematically disfavor difficult-to-document barriers despite its safeguards.","rationale":"This is the cleanest match between a real strategic problem and the rivalry archetype: a fixed reward pool makes testers interdependent, while sealed batches, resource caps, reproducibility gates, and complementary portfolio awards directly alter the path to winning. The synthetic mock round is authorized, reversible, and capable of producing decisive contrasts against filing-order selection using the same reports. The adopter is identifiable and the production path is bounded, although conventional bounty and challenge practices make the remaining distinction vulnerable to scrutiny."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"D offers the strongest combined strict and partner opportunity because the scarce prize, strategic failure modes, intervention, and comparative mock test align tightly. B deserves early scrutiny for its exceptional importance and decisive simulator path despite production-timing hazards. C is safer and deployable but more vulnerable to collapsing into standard evaluation governance. A is inventive and well specified, yet its central economic signal and ecosystem feasibility are least resolvable by the proposed first study.","confidence":"HIGH"}