{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C010","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"Archived records may not support consistent reconstruction of all attempted batches and resource inputs, making the shadow cap and resulting rankings arbitrary.","rationale":"The scarce demonstration award and selective peak reporting create a credible rivalry problem, and hidden endurance testing directly targets the failure mode. The archived-data first step is safe and reversible, but the elaborate resource accounting, composite scoring, and demonstration-to-prize transition impose substantial governance burden. Its components also resemble familiar prize and independent-validation practices, leaving the combined structural claim most exposed if records are incomplete."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":83,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"Candidate methods may measure legitimately different size properties, so freezing one measurand could manufacture a ranking rather than identify a transferable default.","rationale":"Default designation is genuinely scarce and can create durable technical and commercial dependence. Balanced independent-laboratory trials, held-out audits, portability floors, and fixed-term reopening are tightly connected to that causal structure. The shadow league offers strong decision-changing tests using existing records, although interlaboratory comparisons and reference-method governance look relatively close to standard-setting practice and the measurand problem could invalidate the arena."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":96,"deployability_complexity":90,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":92,"empirical_partner_potential":96,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"Common wafers and the frozen rubric may systematically favor certain process families while failing to represent actual integration conditions.","rationale":"This is the cleanest bounded contest: one facility controls a genuinely scarce slot, the competing teams are identifiable, and common-wafer replication directly tests whether proposal standing reflects reproducible shared-facility performance. The facility has the records, retained artifacts, authority, and operational incentive needed for a reversible shadow study. Clear falsifiers—rank instability, process-family bias, or failure to predict integration—can change the decision before new fabrication or allocation changes occur."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":96,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":93,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"Lifecycle costs and remediation liabilities may be too uncertain to attribute or bond proportionately, distorting competition and excluding smaller qualified suppliers.","rationale":"The water-treatment stakes are highest, and standardized testing, safety gates, lifecycle costing, interface ownership, and a reserve supplier address concrete selection and lock-in failures. A utility could run the bounded shadow tender and compare its ranking with operating evidence without changing contracts or exposing a treatment stream. Scrutiny is especially worthwhile, but the design is more complex and its contrastive claim is vulnerable because many elements resemble established best-value procurement, performance testing, bonding, and open-interface controls."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually complete governed-rivalry designs, so the main separation is not detail but whether a single authorized partner can run a bounded comparison whose result changes a real allocation decision. C has the tightest arena and strongest partner test; D has greater consequences but more procurement familiarity and lifecycle-attribution complexity; B depends on a defensible common measurand; A depends on difficult retrospective resource and failure-history reconstruction.","confidence":"HIGH"}