{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C012","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":64,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The organization-level contest may itself harden identity boundaries and create gatekeepers, while portfolio scoring permits opaque discretion about which constituencies count as complementary.","rationale":"The scarce seats, strategic endorsements, access concentration, and lock-in form a consequential rivalry problem, and the proposal supplies unusually explicit rules, exercises, sanctions, direct-access protections, expiration, and synthetic negative tests. A municipality could test it safely, but live deployment is politically and administratively demanding, verification may expose sensitive affiliations, and direct multilingual consultation or a mini-public could remove the need for organizational rivalry."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":77,"causal_archetype_fit":79,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":55,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":75,"biggest_visible_risk":"Common scoring and reserved-case performance may impose false commensurability on situated interpretations and reward decontextualized, prediction-like explanations.","rationale":"The shared corpus, scarce commissions, preregistration, evidence maps, audits, and planted synthetic cases make the proposal bounded and testable. However, the decisive premise—that ethnographic explanations can be fairly compared through a common arena—is also its central vulnerability; secure data governance, participant permissions, diverse judging roles, and resource accounting create heavy deployment demands, while plural review or adversarial collaboration may address the concern without ranking interpretations."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":91,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"A successful synthetic migration and protocol trial may poorly predict decades-long stewardship, institutional continuity, and trust under real cultural-access conditions.","rationale":"This is the clearest causal and operational fit: repositories compete for a scarce mandate, can conceal lifecycle and exit costs, and can acquire lock-in that impairs future rivalry. Ingestion, embargo, withdrawal, outage, restoration, and export tasks directly test the claimed mechanism and can change the custody decision without exposing restricted records. The consortium is an identifiable adopter with allocation authority, and the primary/recovery portfolio, transition reserve, expiration, and rollback sharply bound risk, though parts may resemble rigorous procurement and interoperability practice."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":94,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"The contest and neighborhood council may add a new gatekeeping and administrative burden when centralized scheduling and cumulative-contact controls could solve the core problem more directly.","rationale":"Scarce placements and liaison hours create a credible rivalry with observable gaming, cumulative resident burden, and incumbent access capture. The university and field station offer a strong partner path, and the tabletop can test identity sensitivity, planted strategies, portfolio discretion, appeals, and process cost before affecting placements. The design is comparatively deployable and preserves individual consent, but much of its value may be reproducible through ordinary ethics review, shared scheduling, burden ceilings, or a qualified lottery without a competitive arena."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and D have the strongest near-term partner studies because their scarce resources, decision authorities, observable performance tasks, and rollback paths are unusually concrete. A addresses the most politically consequential gatekeeping problem but requires harder judgments about representation and complementarity. B is carefully bounded yet depends on the most contestable measurement premise: that situated ethnographic explanations remain meaningfully rankable under common evidence and reserved-case rules.","confidence":"HIGH"}