{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C019","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The cell may mainly repackage familiar cross-functional stage-gate or compliance-review practice, leaving little contrastive claim beyond synchronized scheduling and standardized intake.","rationale":"The proposal targets a consequential and observable municipal coordination failure with a tightly bounded facilitator, explicit eligibility rules, unchanged approval authority, and an unusually safe archived-file comparison. Its matched disciplines, fixed review-time cap, blinded dossier scoring, successive-cycle assessment, and concrete falsifiers could distinguish reusable coordination gains from extra labor or weakened review. Scrutiny should focus on whether coordination is truly rate-limiting and whether the design remains meaningfully distinct from established preflight or stage-gate review."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":56,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":90,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":76,"biggest_visible_risk":"The kernel looks highly vulnerable to being ordinary structured intake, templating, validation, and workflow automation applied to foresight dossiers.","rationale":"This is the easiest and safest proposal to probe, with 24 completed dossiers, fixed versions, blinded assessment, batch degradation checks, and decision-relevant failure criteria. However, the underlying problem is less consequential than the operational-readiness problems in the other proposals, and the intervention may offer only routine process standardization. It remains a good partner study if the utility can demonstrate recurring manual reconstruction and meaningful uncertainty-preservation failures."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":75,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"The standing relay may reduce to a conventional expert network plus Delphi-style elicitation, while scarce expert attention and compensation remain case-proportional bottlenecks.","rationale":"The distributed-judgment problem is credible, and the proposal carefully separates reusable relationships and governance from expert judgment as a consumed cofactor. The archived-question probe can test setup savings, dissent preservation, participant burden, and second-cycle regeneration without operational reliance. Its strict opportunity is weakened by strong prior-art vulnerability and by uncertainty over whether four heterogeneous questions can establish reusable advantage rather than merely demonstrate competent convening."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":97,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":93,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":96,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"A modular rehearsal bed may generate faster but less valid exercises because fixed modules, synthetic data, and compressed timing can shape behavior or create rig-attributable findings.","rationale":"This proposal has the strongest combination of consequential problem, causally essential reusable-bed architecture, operational precision, and decisive authorized test. The counterbalanced design, equal-duration baseline, isolated synthetic environment, second-cycle turnover check, explicit attribution of rig defects, and strong halt conditions make the central claim unusually falsifiable. Although exercise platforms and modular tabletop methods may supply prior art, scrutiny could still reveal a meaningful bounded contrast around repeatable setup reduction with preserved behavioral evidence and reset integrity."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually mature, bounded, and partner-testable; the main discriminator is not safety or specificity but whether a meaningful claim survives familiar process analogues. D and A combine high-consequence operational problems with strong counterfactual probes, while C and especially B are more vulnerable to collapsing into established elicitation, templating, or workflow practice.","confidence":"HIGH"}