{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C013","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"A nonproduction rehearsal may systematically diverge from real control operation and create false reassurance before formal retesting.","rationale":"The proposal addresses consequential late discovery of remediation defects, and the reusable, resettable proving cell is causally central rather than decorative. Its six-case outcome-sealed replay is unusually bounded and decision-changing, with explicit kill signals and preserved assurance authority. Scrutiny should focus on whether this is meaningfully distinct from established remediation rehearsal or readiness-review practices and whether representative fixtures can be maintained without case-proportional effort."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":55,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"The capsule may be a sophisticated version of standard precedent libraries, templates, and rules-based accounting workflows, leaving little contrastive claim after scrutiny.","rationale":"The intervention is narrow, safe, deployable, and supported by a strong blinded holdout comparison against independent full reanalysis. Eligibility and retirement rules make the reuse mechanism credible. The underlying problem is less consequential than unresolved-control or population-integrity failures, however, and the proposed artifact looks particularly vulnerable to prior art in standardized technical-accounting playbooks and lease-accounting automation."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":47,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"The central intervention closely resembles ordinary governed ETL, canonical-schema, reconciliation, and audit-data-preparation pipelines.","rationale":"Population completeness and semantic integrity are important, and the gateway has exceptionally concrete invariants, authority boundaries, telemetry, and an independently reperformed shadow test. It is also highly adoptable by an audit partner. Its scrutiny priority is constrained by severe prior-art vulnerability: versioned source profiles, schema mapping, validation, reconciliation, exception routing, and pipeline monitoring collectively look like mature standard practice, so only a narrow regeneration or assay claim may remain."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":83,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":74,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"Observed gains may come from selecting cooperative suppliers or shifting uncounted coordination work to them rather than from reusable broker capacity.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a credible cross-organizational activation barrier—authentication, trust, translation, and evidence exchange—that internal matching automation does not remove. The standing broker and regeneration of relationship authority are causally essential and comparatively distinctive. The capped matched-case pilot is authorized, reversible, reproducible, and capable of falsifying both the problem and mechanism, though supplier consent, selection effects, and bilateral resource accounting require close scrutiny."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually bounded and testable, but they divide into two groups: D and A offer stronger contrastive mechanisms with important partner-resolvable uncertainties, while B and especially C are easier to deploy yet more exposed to being standard templating or data-pipeline practice. D leads because its reusable cross-organizational trust and translation mechanism is both causally necessary and less reducible to generic automation; A follows with the strongest retrospective falsification design but greater environment-fidelity risk.","confidence":"HIGH"}