{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C011","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":55,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":78,"scrutiny_priority":70,"biggest_visible_risk":"The elaborate contest machinery may be disproportionate to a curriculum-allocation problem that ordinary transparent committee governance or collaborative syllabus design could resolve.","rationale":"The proposal identifies plausible scarcity, strategic interdependence, incumbency, and preparation-cost escalation, then offers unusually clear rules, authority boundaries, counterfactuals, and falsifiers. Its retrospective audit is safe and feasible. Scrutiny should test whether the alleged adversarial dynamics are consequential enough to require a contest rather than familiar curriculum procedures."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":75,"causal_archetype_fit":78,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":52,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":52,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":61,"empirical_partner_potential":73,"scrutiny_priority":64,"biggest_visible_risk":"Tournament pairing, frozen propositions, and resource caps may manufacture rankings from path-dependent debate performance rather than improve interpretation of context-sensitive evidence.","rationale":"The stress-test is bounded, auditable, reversible, and explicit about not judging religious truth. However, structured adversarial comparison is less clearly necessary than strong peer review, evidence synthesis, or collaborative adversarial exchange, and its decisive output may be highly sensitive to pairing, judges, and dossier construction."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":60,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":58,"authority_safety_reversibility":90,"strict_potential":81,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"Standardized work units and externality adjustments may conceal collection-specific conservation and cultural constraints, making apparent price discovery misleading or exclusionary.","rationale":"This has the clearest consequential scarcity, strategic bidding mechanism, measurable externalities, accountable adopter, and decision-changing retrospective test. The auction is causally central rather than decorative, while permissions and safety remain noncontestable. Prior scrutiny should focus on whether genuinely comparable units can be constructed without discretionary adjustments overwhelming the price signal."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":62,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":46,"authority_safety_reversibility":88,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formal competition for fieldwork access could intensify pressure, legitimize extractive research, or privilege the community panel and institutional sponsors over dissenting individuals despite nominal consent safeguards.","rationale":"Cumulative participant burden and access capture are important, structurally credible problems that project-level ethics review can miss. The community-authorized audit could decisively reveal whether projects are strategically interdependent and whether portfolio governance is warranted. Its partner potential is excellent, but live deployment requires unusually demanding representation, consent, and anti-commodification safeguards."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and D merit first scrutiny because they address consequential, measurable scarcity with identifiable authorities and bounded partner studies. C offers the strongest strict mechanism-to-outcome claim; D offers the strongest partner-resolvable uncertainty but greater ethical and governance complexity. A and B are carefully specified yet more vulnerable to being elaborate replacements for established noncontest procedures.","confidence":"MODERATE"}