{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C020","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":69,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"Privacy-safe replay may prove infeasible because sensitive capture and misleading reconstruction persist despite filtering and user review.","rationale":"The proposal targets a consequential, observable reconstruction bottleneck and makes the reusable compile-screen-release-purge cycle causally central. Its 15-event matched shadow probe has decision-changing reproduction, labor, leakage, and purge outcomes. The main scrutiny issue is whether it remains meaningfully distinct from structured reporting and selective session-replay systems while delivering enough fidelity to justify its privacy and verification burden."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":73,"causal_archetype_fit":78,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":48,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":64,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":60,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":70,"biggest_visible_risk":"The foundry may reduce to a governed Wizard-of-Oz prototyping service whose human and custom setup costs remain proportional to each hypothesis.","rationale":"The setup problem is credible and the bounded study can measure fidelity, preparation effort, operator load, and interpretive overreach. However, reusable prototyping shells, behavior modules, and controlled hidden operators look close to the proposal's own rivals, making the contrastive claim vulnerable. A partner could decisively test whether reuse actually lowers marginal work, but strict opportunity depends on demonstrating more than standardized research operations."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":70,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":57,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":81,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":64,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":75,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formal token allocation may worsen fluid collaboration or merely relocate contention into strategic bidding, moderator exceptions, and side channels.","rationale":"The bid-grant-release-reset cycle is a strong causal realization and the counterbalanced sandbox test could falsify benefit through collision, wait, abandonment, accessibility, and moderator-work measures. Yet raised hands, queues, moderation, and channel-ownership controls are close rivals, while reliable cross-tool and cross-modality integration is demanding. The proposal is therefore more compelling as a bounded partner study than as an immediately resilient strict claim."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":81,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Maintaining trustworthy per-version application mappings may consume effort comparable to manual configuration while centralizing sensitive preference data.","rationale":"Repeated cross-application translation is a concrete and important burden, and the compiler's contract-diff-confirm-validate-reset mechanism is essential rather than decorative. The sandbox comparison is highly falsifiable and unusually reversible. Its strict claim remains vulnerable to operating-system preferences, saved settings, and centralized profiles, and broad deployment would require sustained application-owner cooperation, but a willing partner could quickly resolve the decisive marginal-work and mapping-reliability uncertainty."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A and D are the strongest scrutiny candidates because they combine consequential recurring user burdens with sharply bounded, reversible comparisons; A leads narrowly on contrastive mechanism and near-term containment, while D has the strongest partner potential but heavier ecosystem maintenance. C and B are testable partner studies, yet both face closer-looking standard-practice rivals and greater risk that their reusable facilitator merely formalizes an existing queue, moderation, or Wizard-of-Oz workflow.","confidence":"HIGH"}