{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C021","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":49,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"The apparent interface burden may be inseparable from theorem-specific mathematical invention, leaving too few genuinely reusable translation cases for a clinic to outperform direct collaboration.","rationale":"The proposal identifies observable handoff failures and makes reusable interface capacity causally central rather than decorative. Its archived shadow comparison is unusually bounded, decision-relevant, reversible, and capable of distinguishing translation failures from missing mathematics. The chief uncertainties—case eligibility, fidelity, labor savings, and rotation continuity—are resolvable by a willing cross-subfield project. Prior-art vulnerability remains moderate because clinics, brokering, glossaries, and specialist review lanes are recognizable organizational forms."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":36,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":71,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":67,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention closely resembles established bounded graph enumeration and automated counterexample-search practice, while trustworthy predicate encoding may remain the dominant case-specific cost.","rationale":"The problem is concrete and consequential within graph-research workflows, and the proposal has excellent epistemic boundaries, witness validation, stop rules, and an archival test that can expose missed witnesses or invalid coverage. However, the core generator-evaluator-validator pathway looks highly vulnerable to prior art, canonical enumeration scales poorly, and the shared predicate grammar may admit only a biased subset. A partner study could still establish local value even if a broad strict claim does not survive."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":48,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"Generic proof transport may produce opaque, unnatural counterpart statements and proof terms, while existing equivalence and automation machinery may already cover much of the claimed pathway.","rationale":"This is the most technically closed-loop proposal: inputs, supported operations, explicit bases, kernel verification, human fidelity review, version withdrawal, and non-live testing are all sharply bounded. A formal-library partner could decisively measure eligibility, maintenance burden, proof-term growth, and semantic fidelity. Its strict potential is limited by strong prior-art vulnerability around equivalence-based transport, tactics, and generated theorem counterparts, but its exact safeguards and partner-resolvable uncertainty justify early scrutiny."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":72,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":22,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":53,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":55,"empirical_partner_potential":83,"scrutiny_priority":64,"biggest_visible_risk":"Reusing a fixed Gröbner basis for repeated ideal-membership checks with certificates is so close to standard computational-algebra practice that little meaningful contrastive claim may remain after scrutiny.","rationale":"The lane is precise, safe, auditable, and easy to test on archived identities, with clear rejection of mismatched algebraic questions. The causal reuse story is coherent, and a partner could quantify local amortization and coefficient-growth limits. Yet the intervention appears especially vulnerable to prior art and may amount chiefly to governed caching plus certificate checking; its value also depends on many consequential cases sharing exactly one stable ring, ideal, and order."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals offer unusually strong bounded probes and reversible authority structures. The main discriminator is not test quality but whether a meaningful contrastive claim is likely to survive scrutiny: A frames a less standardized organizational mechanism with decisive partner-resolvable uncertainty; C has a rigorous formal pathway but recognizable transport antecedents; B and especially D look increasingly like governed versions of familiar computational screening or reduction workflows.","confidence":"HIGH"}