{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C021","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":34,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":80,"scrutiny_priority":72,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention looks close to standard Gröbner-basis reuse with certificate checking, leaving little meaningful contrast beyond careful workflow governance.","rationale":"The fixed-ideal bottleneck is credible, the reusable basis is causally central, and the shadow comparison has strong correctness, workload, mismatch, and rollback tests. Its main weakness is prior-art vulnerability: caching or reusing a verified basis and normal-form reducer is an obvious established-looking computational pattern, so scrutiny may leave only a narrow governance claim."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":78,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":83,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"The supposed reusable translation barrier may be inseparable from theorem-specific mathematical invention, making the clinic added expert labor rather than a reusable causal facilitator.","rationale":"Cross-subfield handoff failures are consequential, and the proposal supplies unusually concrete eligibility, fidelity review, workload, conflict, and rollback controls for a human service. The archived replay can decisively test whether packet construction reduces labor without altering statements. Strict potential is limited by heterogeneous cases, attribution difficulty, and dependence on scarce specialists, but the partner-study opportunity is excellent."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":56,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Existing equivalence, rewriting, and proof-automation facilities may already cover most eligible transports, reducing the remaining claim to a costly packaging layer with narrow coverage.","rationale":"This is the cleanest bounded transformation: an existing proof is transported through an explicit verified equivalence, independently kernel-checked, reviewed for semantic fidelity, and never merged automatically. The concealed archival comparison measures total repair and maintenance burden and can genuinely reject the intervention. It remains vulnerable to prior art and proof-term opacity, but its causal claim and safety envelope are especially sharp."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":42,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"Canonical bounded counterexample enumeration is a familiar-looking practice, while trustworthy per-conjecture predicate encoding may remain the dominant non-reusable cost.","rationale":"The wasted-proof-effort problem is real, the witness versus bounded-no-witness distinction is disciplined, and the probe tests missed witnesses, false witnesses, rejection, coverage, defects, and rollback. The proposal is highly deployable within a narrow graph grammar. Its contrastive resilience is weaker because the core search pipeline resembles standard exhaustive computational conjecture testing, and scaling saturates quickly."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually bounded and testable; the main discriminator is not safety but whether scrutiny would reveal the reusable mechanism to be standard practice or merely added expert capacity. C offers the strongest strict lane, D a strong but prior-art-vulnerable computational lane, B the strongest empirical-partner lane, and A the narrowest remaining contrast.","confidence":"HIGH"}