{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C009","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":52,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"The governed arena may largely formalize familiar competition-problem editorial practices, leaving little meaningful contrastive claim after prior-art scrutiny.","rationale":"The scarce slots, strategic submissions, portfolio interactions, and contestant/grader externalities form a credible rivalry problem. The intervention is unusually bounded, specific, safe, and testable through retired problems, with clear stop conditions and an obvious organizing-committee partner. Its main weakness is distinctiveness: coded review, independent validation, pilot solving, rubric audits, submission limits, and holistic set assembly all look close to prudent standard selection practice."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":85,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":86,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":69,"deployability_complexity":55,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":81,"biggest_visible_risk":"A supposedly neutral interchange specification and reconstruction gate may embed the very foundational assumptions under dispute, making comparison circular rather than decisive.","rationale":"Default-interface lock-in, migration externalities, and winner control over future compatibility rules are consequential and make rivalry governance causally relevant. Semantic gates, retained maintenance funding, rulemaking separation, and challenger access provide a potentially meaningful structural package. The shadow trial is falsifiable, but corpus sensitivity, foundational incomparability, and the difficulty of defining neutral reconstruction substantially complicate deployment and require a technically capable consortium partner."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":72,"causal_archetype_fit":76,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":58,"operational_specificity":87,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":70,"deployability_complexity":67,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":67,"empirical_partner_potential":79,"scrutiny_priority":72,"biggest_visible_risk":"Establishing independent correctness before ranking may consume much of the scarce specialist capacity the procedure is intended to allocate.","rationale":"The proposal clearly bounds authority, preserves attribution, gates on correctness, and offers an excellent no-stakes comparison against holistic triage. However, the underlying situation may be uncommon, and rivalry may be less suitable than collaborative synthesis when proof routes share dependencies or insights. The machinery also resembles structured peer review and formalization triage, while auditing every route sufficiently to pass a correctness gate could defeat the capacity-saving objective."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"Internal-credit bids may measure team size, patience, strategic hoarding, or risk tolerance rather than the relative time priority the mechanism claims to elicit.","rationale":"Overlapping requests for indivisible compute windows create a concrete scarcity problem with recognizable queue gaming and operational spillovers. The auction archetype is essential rather than decorative, and eligibility gates, nontransferable budgets, separate externality charges, bonds, standby transfer, and independent collusion inquiry form a specific deployable design. Its scripted shadow study directly tests value elicitation, abuse detection, false flags, administrative cost, and alternatives without touching the live queue, giving a facility partner unusually decision-relevant evidence."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually bounded, reversible, and equipped with decision-changing shadow tests. D offers the strongest combination of a plainly scarce resource, causally essential rivalry mechanism, measurable operational outcomes, and an accessible partner trial. B has higher conceptual upside but harder foundational comparability; A and C are safer to test but more vulnerable to collapsing into formalized versions of familiar expert-selection practice.","confidence":"HIGH"}