{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C008","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":84,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":74,"adopter_partner_path":57,"deployability_complexity":39,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":66,"scrutiny_priority":70,"biggest_visible_risk":"The elaborate credit auction may add configuration, identity-governance, and monitoring burdens without eliciting useful priority information beyond ordinary user preferences or filtering.","rationale":"Notification overload and issuer escalation are credible, and scarce interruption slots make rivalry causally relevant. The rules, protected channels, reversibility, and mock test are unusually specific. However, meaningful deployment requires operating-system authority, robust publisher aggregation, and sustained enforcement, while the proposed replay cannot establish that real issuers' bids convey user-relevant information."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":81,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Portfolio scoring could encode the sponsor's assumptions and merely replace filing-order gaming with rubric and category gaming.","rationale":"A finite bounty makes testers strategically interdependent, and sealed batches, safety gates, resource caps, reproducibility review, and complementary portfolio selection directly address the stated failure modes. An accessibility program can run the isolated mock round under clear authority, and comparing selection methods on the same reports can change a concrete design decision. The approach resembles established challenge and bounty governance, so its surviving contrastive claim may be narrower than its operational strength."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":77,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":83,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":55,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formalized rivalry and finalist rehearsal may delay critical evidence sharing or remediation during incidents where the safe comparison window is short or nonexistent.","rationale":"Incident misdiagnosis and confounded simultaneous changes are highly consequential, and expiring command leases provide a strong scarcity mechanism. The proposal carefully protects emergency containment and offers a bounded tabletop study with observable failure measures. Yet incident response fundamentally depends on rapid cooperation, and the protocol's panels, scoring, caps, and rehearsals may be too slow or artificial outside exercises; partner testing is therefore stronger than immediate strict deployment potential."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"A common composite evaluation can become another gameable benchmark and may not predict long-term automation bias or production review quality.","rationale":"Competition for one default slot creates genuine strategic dependence, and common tasks, harm thresholds, resource caps, audit, reversible deployment, and challenger access form a coherent intervention. The non-production comparison is feasible for a product and research organization and can reveal whether governance changes the selected interface. Its main weakness is distinctiveness: much of the design resembles a well-governed bake-off or experimentation program, leaving winner lock-in and joint rivalry governance as the narrower contrastive core."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"B and D offer the clearest near-term partner studies with concrete selection decisions, while C addresses the most consequential domain but carries greater timing and safety tension. A is structurally inventive and well bounded at the prototype stage, yet its platform dependence and inability to test genuine issuer bidding make scrutiny less immediately productive.","confidence":"HIGH"}