{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C011","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":72,"causal_archetype_fit":74,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":83,"adopter_partner_path":81,"deployability_complexity":70,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":71,"empirical_partner_potential":83,"scrutiny_priority":77,"biggest_visible_risk":"The tournament may impose false comparability on interpretations whose necessary context or epistemic commitments cannot responsibly be frozen and scored.","rationale":"The retrospective audit is unusually bounded, reversible, and capable of rejecting the intervention, with a credible journal or center partner. However, the proposal gives substantial machinery to a problem whose prevalence and consequence are not yet demonstrated, and much of the value might be captured by rigorous adversarial review, source auditing, or an unranked synthesis without a winner designation."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":80,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":81,"biggest_visible_risk":"The governed contest may merely formalize ordinary curriculum portfolio selection while increasing labor and implying an objectionable ranking of traditions.","rationale":"Scarce module slots, incumbency, lobbying, and downstream teaching burdens form a credible local problem, and a department could resolve the central uncertainty through a small records audit or simulation. The portfolio mechanism is sensible and operational, but its contrastive advantage over transparent committee governance, rotation, or collaborative syllabus design appears modest."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":74,"deployability_complexity":57,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formal competition for community access could legitimize extraction or pressure even when community deliberation or a moratorium would be safer.","rationale":"Cumulative participant burden and strategic capture of introductions, events, and controlled materials are consequential problems not necessarily visible to project-level ethics review. Capacity budgeting and portfolio selection are causally relevant, while consent and community refusal remain outside scoring. The proposed audit is falsifiable and safe, but implementation requires unusually strong, representative community authority and could impose substantial governance and trust costs."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":93,"biggest_visible_risk":"Preservation projects may prove too collection-specific for standardized work units and externality adjustments to retain meaningful price discovery.","rationale":"The proposal tightly links strategic underbidding and lifecycle-cost externalization to a specific reverse-auction design, with clear eligibility floors, audits, concentration controls, and custodial authority. Its retrospective cost reconstruction can decisively test comparability and predictive value without touching materials or changing awards. Auction and lifecycle-cost methods may be prior-art-vulnerable, but a meaningful bounded claim could remain if the paper ordering works under cultural and conservation constraints."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"D offers the cleanest strict and partner-ready test; C addresses the most consequential problem but carries the hardest legitimacy and implementation constraints. B is an accessible partner study with a weaker contrastive claim, while A is carefully governed but depends most heavily on demonstrating that the proposed competitive arena improves on less contest-like scholarly review.","confidence":"HIGH"}