{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C009","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention may largely formalize familiar competition-problem editorial practices, leaving little meaningful contrastive claim after prior-art scrutiny.","rationale":"The scarce slots, rival authors, submission escalation, leakage, and portfolio-level interactions make the rivalry archetype causal rather than decorative. The shadow exercise is unusually bounded and decision-relevant, with planted defects, a holistic baseline, budget limits, sensitivity checks, and strong halt conditions. An organizing committee has clear authority and can test the design without touching a live contest. Its main weakness is distinctiveness: validation, pilot solving, anonymized review, submission limits, and portfolio balancing all look readily assimilable to standard editorial governance."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":79,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":87,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":73,"deployability_complexity":56,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":81,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"A supposedly neutral interchange representation and semantic reconstruction gate may necessarily privilege one disputed foundation, making the comparison circular.","rationale":"The proposal identifies consequential lock-in, migration burdens, and winner control, and it supplies credible governance safeguards, exit duties, and a reversible shadow trial. However, the central measurement problem may not be resolvable inside the proposed arena: foundations can be partly incomparable, corpus choice can determine results, and neutrality of the interchange specification is itself contested. The rotating withheld-corpus test can reveal instability, so a sophisticated consortium could learn from it, but implementation demands substantial specialist labor before the selection mechanism is shown to be coherent."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Internal credit bids may measure team structure, patience, or strategic hoarding rather than the relative time priority the auction claims to elicit.","rationale":"This is the strongest causal use of rivalry: overlapping indivisible requests create a genuine allocation contest, and finite nontransferable credits impose an explicit intertemporal tradeoff without requiring administrators to rank mathematical merit. Eligibility gates, separate externality charges, bonds, standby transfer, stable identities, and inquiry-based collusion controls are highly specific. The scripted ten-round shadow study directly probes identity splitting, innocent correlation, bid rotation, reproducibility, overhead, and alignment with preregistered priorities. Auction complexity and construct validity weaken strict potential, but those uncertainties are unusually suitable for resolution by an authorized facility partner."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":83,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":85,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"The challenge may consume the same scarce expert attention it is intended to allocate and discourage synthesis among proof teams.","rationale":"The proposal is exceptionally bounded: one theorem, one verification slot, correctness as a noncompensable gate, limited secondary criteria, equal reviewer-facing resources, and staged reopening. The consortium has clear authority, while the authorized first step uses settled mathematics and carries no live reputational or funding consequence. Its comparative shadow study includes planted gaps and dependencies, a holistic-triage control, independent reproduction, reviewer-time accounting, and explicit failure thresholds. Although several components resemble disciplined peer review, the complete design retains a meaningful testable contrast around route competition, formalization burden, and resource caps."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals provide unusually strong authority boundaries, reversible shadow tests, and noncompensable validity or readiness gates. D offers the best balance of bounded strict opportunity and partner-testability; C has the highest-value empirical mechanism test but greater construct-validity and governance risk; A is highly deployable but most vulnerable to collapsing into standard editorial practice; B addresses important lock-in yet depends on the least secure common measurement foundation.","confidence":"HIGH"}