{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C012","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":56,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The design may reduce to an unusually elaborate repository procurement and portability test, leaving little meaningful contrast beyond recognizable RFP, escrow, redundancy, and contract controls.","rationale":"The custody, cultural-protocol, continuity, and lock-in problem is consequential, and rivalry is genuinely present because repositories pursue a scarce mandate. The synthetic corpus, executable failure and export tasks, held-out audits, transition reserve, independent recovery copy, and explicit halt conditions form an unusually safe and decision-relevant test. Its main scrutiny vulnerability is prior-art resilience rather than operational credibility."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":72,"causal_archetype_fit":75,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":63,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":61,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":65,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"Common ranking and reserved-case diagnostics may impose false commensurability on situated interpretations and reward prediction-like simplification rather than better ethnographic explanation.","rationale":"The proposal supplies strong safeguards, a synthetic comparison, explicit failure conditions, and a plausible journal-data-steward partnership. However, the claimed strategic problem is less clearly consequential than in the other proposals, and rivalry may be counterproductive where plural publication, registered review, synthesis, or adversarial collaboration can expose negative cases without creating a canonical ranking. It remains partner-testable, but its strict claim is fragile."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"Competition for official recognition may itself harden identity boundaries and legitimate organizational gatekeepers even when exclusivity, authenticity claims, and displacement of direct resident voice are formally prohibited.","rationale":"Gatekeeper concentration in scarce compensated liaison seats is important and structurally credible, and the proposal carefully protects direct civic channels, dissent, privacy, expiration, and appeal. The fictional tabletop and comparison with a lottery and mini-public could decisively test scoring stability and harmful identity judgments. Strict potential is constrained because less competitive representation methods may address the objective more legitimately and with lower constitutive harm."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":95,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":97,"scrutiny_priority":95,"biggest_visible_risk":"The neighborhood research council and added review process could become a new gatekeeper while consuming more scarce community and liaison capacity than the allocation problem it is meant to solve.","rationale":"The proposal targets a concrete institutional scarcity where teams can capture access, escalate resources, conceal cumulative burden, and shape samples through strategic interaction, making the rivalry archetype causally central. Authority is tightly limited to university-controlled placements and support, while individual consent remains outside the prize. The identity-permuted tabletop has planted strategies, false-referral measures, workload metrics, and a clear live-pilot decision, giving a willing field station a bounded way to resolve the decisive uncertainties."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"D offers the strongest combination of a causally essential rivalry problem and an immediately credible partner study. A is the safest and most executable strict candidate but appears more vulnerable to being absorbed by established procurement and preservation controls. C is important and highly testable but carries constitutive representation risk. B has excellent experimental discipline yet the weakest case that competitive ranking improves the underlying epistemic objective.","confidence":"HIGH"}