{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C012","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"The design may be an elaborate version of established repository procurement, portability testing, and redundant preservation, leaving little contrastive claim after prior-art scrutiny.","rationale":"A scarce custody mandate creates genuine strategic rivalry, so the contest archetype is causally central rather than decorative. The synthetic corpus, held-out protocol cases, outage recovery, neutral export restoration, identity permutation, transition reserve, and explicit halt conditions form an unusually bounded and decision-relevant test. Authority over records remains with legitimate holders, and no restricted material enters the first step. The main weakness is that much of the intervention resembles sophisticated procurement and digital-preservation contracting."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":94,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The arena may formalize harmful competition over community access when centralized scheduling, burden limits, or participatory agenda setting could solve the problem more legitimately.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a concrete scarcity—two placements and 120 liaison hours—and observable strategic conduct that standalone ethics review does not address. Its tabletop plants gaming and innocent patterns, permutes identities, measures false referrals and administrative burden, and can directly determine whether a live pilot is warranted. Individual consent remains outside the award. Its empirical-partner lane is especially strong, although the comparative selection mechanism may prove unnecessary once cumulative burden and recruitment are centrally governed."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":77,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"Competition among associations may itself harden identity boundaries and manufacture gatekeepers, defeating the plural representation objective despite procedural safeguards.","rationale":"The problem is consequential and the proposal carefully separates liaison capability from cultural authenticity, preserves direct resident channels, and offers a safe synthetic comparison against a lottery and mini-public. Communication exercises, minority-statement preservation, status-cue permutation, and false-misconduct tracking create meaningful falsifiers. However, organization-level rivalry is less clearly essential than in procurement, and portfolio selection could become opaque identity balancing while advantaging incorporated incumbents."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":80,"causal_archetype_fit":72,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":69,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":71,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":81,"biggest_visible_risk":"Common scoring and reserved-case diagnostics may reward decontextualized prediction and impose false commensurability on legitimate ethnographic interpretations.","rationale":"The proposal makes cherry-picking, unequal access, labor escalation, and claim overreach observable through preregistration, evidence maps, reserved cases, audits, and a fictional-corpus first step. The synthetic comparison with peer review and a plural symposium could resolve important uncertainties for a willing journal. Nonetheless, the arena is operationally heavy, overlaps visibly with registered review and adversarial reanalysis practices, and may distort the contextual reasoning it aims to improve."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A and B merit first scrutiny through different lanes: A has the strongest strict, causally essential procurement structure, while B offers the clearest bounded empirical-partner study. C addresses a highly important problem but carries a deeper legitimacy risk from formalizing organizational rivalry. D is testable and safe at the first step but has the weakest archetype necessity and the greatest methodological-complexity burden.","confidence":"HIGH"}