{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C016","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"Remote consultation may omit physical, spatial, or sensory information essential to safe preservation decisions, making the proposed eligible class much narrower than expected.","rationale":"The proposal targets a consequential, time-sensitive barrier and makes specialist reuse causally central rather than decorative. Its bounded action vocabulary, explicit exclusions, retained local authority, simulation-first probe, matched baseline, and decision-changing falsifiers are unusually strong. Scrutiny should focus on whether a meaningful population of scenes is both remotely interpretable and not already covered by comparable consult arrangements."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":80,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Cross-jurisdiction authorization and institutional variation may be the substantive case-specific barrier, leaving little stable brokerage work that can be standardized without shifting burden or authority.","rationale":"The recurring coordination problem is important, and the standing broker, maintained relationships, authorization maps, and laboratory interfaces are causally essential to the claimed improvement. The proposal preserves scientific and jurisdictional authority and offers a safe, falsifiable tabletop study. Its main weakness is deployment dependence on several willing institutions and the possibility that brokerage resembles existing coordination roles or cannot generalize across jurisdictions."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":81,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":56,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":85,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention may reduce to familiar reference-library, workflow-automation, and report-template practice, leaving little meaningful contrastive claim beyond ordinary laboratory tooling.","rationale":"This is the easiest proposal to test safely and quantitatively within one laboratory, with clear eligibility, reset, error, reviewer-correction, and time measures. The problem is credible, but the mechanism is largely standard automation of recurring forensic preparation, so prior-art resilience and strict opportunity are weaker. It remains a good empirical-partner candidate because a bounded blinded shadow probe can decisively establish whether setup work is truly rate-limiting without changing examiner authority."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"A certificate labeled cleared could anchor later custodial action despite stale or mismatched source data, creating a path from a workflow error to irreversible evidence loss.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a costly and protective multi-source verification burden with exceptionally clear authority boundaries, conservative treatment of missing data, and a strong shadow test spanning false clearance, false blocking, freshness, workload transfer, and reset. It is operationally credible and highly partner-testable. Strict potential is moderated because evidence-retention workflow automation and rule-based clearance may be known-looking, while fragmented authoritative systems and bespoke legal judgments could sharply limit the eligible pathway."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A and B offer the strongest combination of consequential problems, causally essential reusable specialist or brokerage capacity, preserved authority, and bounded falsification. D is the strongest safety-critical empirical study but appears more vulnerable to ordinary workflow prior art; C is highly testable and deployable yet has the weakest remaining contrast beyond standard laboratory automation.","confidence":"HIGH"}