{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C019","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":62,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The reusable bed may merely formalize established exercise-program infrastructure while shifting substantial bespoke scenario design into configuration work.","rationale":"The consequential gap between approved scenarios and observed decision behavior is concrete, and the fixed, resettable bed is causally central rather than decorative. The counterbalanced shadow probe, second-cycle turnover check, matched baseline, explicit authority boundaries, and strong rollback make this especially partner-testable. Complexity, participant availability, validity under synthetic conditions, and vulnerability to familiar exercise-platform practice temper strict potential."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":74,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":53,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":94,"deployability_complexity":90,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"The kernel may amount to a conventional structured intake template and workflow applied to a bottleneck that actually lies with downstream planning decisions.","rationale":"The proposal isolates a measurable dossier-to-card transformation and offers the cleanest, safest matched test using completed cases, blinded scoring, frozen rules, and successive batches. It is highly deployable and easy for a utility partner to authorize. Its problem is less consequential than the operational-readiness proposals, and the core package of schemas, validation, routing, and review looks especially vulnerable to standard-workflow prior art."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":96,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":97,"scrutiny_priority":95,"biggest_visible_risk":"A coordinated preflight cell could create persuasive readiness paperwork or de facto approval without resolving the missing authority, resources, legitimacy, or feasibility that actually blocks activation.","rationale":"This addresses a consequential and credible heat-contingency failure mode: options can appear available while safeguards, dependencies, and lead times remain unknown. The synchronized specialist interface is causally tied to the stated coordination barrier, yet preserves objections and statutory authority. Archived inactive cases, fixed reviewer-time caps, blinded assessment, successive-cycle checks, and explicit halt conditions provide an unusually strong partner study. The remaining contrastive claim is bounded, though standing cross-functional review lanes may have substantial prior-art exposure."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":83,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":49,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":71,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":81,"biggest_visible_risk":"A standing relay with anonymized iterative rounds may be difficult to distinguish from established expert-network and Delphi-style elicitation practice.","rationale":"The repeated search, trust, translation, and governance burden is structurally credible, and the proposal carefully separates reusable brokerage from expert judgment as a consumed cofactor. Its archived-question probe can test setup savings, dissent preservation, participant burden, and second-cycle recovery safely. However, eligible questions may be heterogeneous, stable networks may narrow perspectives, and the intervention is highly vulnerable to recognizable expert-elicitation prior art, limiting the likely strict contrast."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually test-ready and authority-conscious; scrutiny should therefore focus less on generic feasibility and more on whether the asserted recurring barrier is actually rate-limiting and whether reusable advantage survives comparison with mature adjacent practices. C and A combine higher-consequence problems with strong bounded partner tests, B offers the cleanest low-risk experiment but a narrower and more standard-looking claim, and D faces the clearest prior-art vulnerability.","confidence":"MODERATE"}