{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C011","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":57,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"The auction depends on constructing comparable preservation units and standardized externality reserves without excluding unique, urgent, or culturally governed collections.","rationale":"The proposal addresses consequential scarcity and cost externalization with an unusually specific, reversible retrospective test. Rivalry is causally relevant, and authority boundaries are strong. Its central contrastive claim is vulnerable where preservation work is heterogeneous or reserve-setting reintroduces discretionary expert judgment, but that uncertainty is directly testable with a consortium partner."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":70,"causal_archetype_fit":75,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":80,"adopter_partner_path":79,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":90,"strict_potential":66,"empirical_partner_potential":78,"scrutiny_priority":72,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposal may formalize ordinary curriculum governance into a costly contest without showing that strategic rivalry, rather than staffing and pedagogical judgment, materially drives module selection.","rationale":"The bounded audit, faculty-governance authority, and downstream learning tests are credible. Portfolio complementarity and challenger access make the archetype more than decorative, but the stated harms are moderate and several mechanisms resemble familiar committee safeguards. A partner could resolve whether positional tactics are substantial enough to justify the added machinery."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":62,"causal_archetype_fit":55,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":81,"falsifiability_test_quality":77,"adopter_partner_path":67,"deployability_complexity":48,"authority_safety_reversibility":84,"strict_potential":50,"empirical_partner_potential":66,"scrutiny_priority":59,"biggest_visible_risk":"The tournament and single reference designation may manufacture the scarcity and winner authority that create the alleged problem, while pairing effects can distort interpretation rather than improve it.","rationale":"The proposal carefully bounds truth claims and offers reproducibility audits, but the bracket is not clearly causally necessary for scholarly comparison. Frozen dossiers, resource caps, and head-to-head scoring may suppress context, and a provisional winner can amplify citation lock-in. The retrospective audit is safe, yet a favorable result would still leave substantial uncertainty about the intervention itself."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":65,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":93,"biggest_visible_risk":"A formally authorized community panel may still be unrepresentative or captured, allowing portfolio selection to legitimize research access opposed by less powerful members.","rationale":"Cumulative participant, liaison, and event burden is a consequential coordination failure that project-level ethics review may miss, making portfolio-level rivalry governance causally central. The proposal sharply separates individual consent and community refusal from scoring, specifies capacity ceilings and nonexclusive access, and begins with a de-identified records audit. A willing community partner could decisively test both scarcity and strategic access routes without changing live access."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"D and A offer the strongest partner-resolvable structural claims, with D combining the clearest cumulative externality, strongest authority boundary, and most essential portfolio mechanism. B is a credible lower-stakes governance study. C is the most vulnerable to an intervention-created scarcity and to decorative tournament structure.","confidence":"HIGH"}