{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C008","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":73,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"The credit exchange may add configuration, identity-governance, and gaming burdens without eliciting priority information beyond ordinary user preferences and notification ranking.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a credible attention externality and makes rivalry causally meaningful through finite slots, publisher aggregation, and costly bids. Its mock replay is safe and decision-relevant, with explicit evidence that could collapse the concept into standard filtering. Scrutiny is warranted, but production adoption requires operating-system authority, reliable publisher identity, protected-channel policing, and evidence that bids improve allocation enough to justify substantial machinery."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":94,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The governed contest may be an elaborate restatement of strong comparative UX experimentation, with incumbent advantages surviving nominally equal resource caps.","rationale":"One scarce default slot, noncomparable team-run tests, and winner control of integration infrastructure create a clear strategic-dependence problem. The frozen arena, noncompensable harm thresholds, reversible award, and challenger access directly govern that rivalry. An internal product owner can authorize a bounded synthetic shadow exercise whose ranking comparison, audit findings, and gaming tests can materially determine whether to proceed."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":97,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":63,"authority_safety_reversibility":90,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"Contest procedures could delay critical evidence sharing or remediation during a deteriorating incident, making the governance mechanism itself a production hazard.","rationale":"The underlying problem is exceptionally consequential, and scarce serialized command access gives the archetype real causal work beyond ordinary deliberation. Expiring leases, safety gates, protected containment, and prediction-triggered reopening are strong. The simulator study is bounded and falsifiable, but successful tabletop operation may transfer poorly to time-critical incidents where masking, scoring, rehearsal, and resource caps impose latency or suppress cooperation."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":92,"empirical_partner_potential":96,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"Portfolio scoring and submission caps may encode the sponsor's incomplete accessibility priorities and exclude valuable hard-to-document findings.","rationale":"A finite bounty pool makes testers genuine rivals, and the intervention tightly redirects competition from filing speed and report volume toward reproducible, complementary coverage. Sealed batches, safety gates, synthetic fixtures, affiliate aggregation, verification, appeals, and portfolio selection form a bounded and deployable mechanism. The proposed mock round offers a particularly clean within-report comparison against filing-order selection and can falsify both selection quality and administrative value without exposing production systems."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals have unusually strong rulebooks, rollback boundaries, and negative tests. D and B should receive scrutiny first because their scarce-selection structures are clear and their partner studies can directly compare decision outcomes at low risk. C has greater stakes but a harder safety-to-deployment bridge, while A has the largest ecosystem and implementation burden relative to the evidence its mock study can initially establish.","confidence":"HIGH"}