{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C024","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":85,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":51,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":70,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The workbench may prove to be a well-governed packaging and digital-curation workflow whose apparent gains come from standardization or concentrated specialist labor rather than regenerative catalytic reuse.","rationale":"The proposal targets a credible preservation bottleneck and sharply separates technically remediable deposits from unresolved authority cases. Its offline assay, matched baseline, independent review, failure thresholds, and rollback design are unusually decision-relevant. A repository and data steward could test it with controlled historical deposits. Its main scrutiny vulnerability is that templates, validation, format migration, and archival curation are known-looking functions, so the residual contrastive claim must rest on repeated low-marginal-burden turnover without hidden labor or relaxed standards."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":67,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":42,"operational_specificity":86,"falsifiability_test_quality":78,"adopter_partner_path":70,"deployability_complexity":53,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":59,"empirical_partner_potential":72,"scrutiny_priority":66,"biggest_visible_risk":"The standing liaison may amount to a conventional community-engagement or brokerage office, with results driven by personal relationships and added case-proportional labor rather than a separable regenerative mechanism.","rationale":"Repeated search, translation, and routing burdens are plausible, and the proposal carefully preserves community, ethics, and individual authority. Eligibility, metered capacity, rerouting, and reversible shadow processing are strong. However, trust and maintained relationships are difficult to standardize or regenerate, community willingness is a prerequisite rather than a readily controlled cofactor, and the proposed retrospective reconstruction cannot decisively demonstrate real-world effects on legitimate decisions or burden. A partner study is possible but requires unusually broad institutional and community alignment."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":81,"causal_archetype_fit":76,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":28,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":54,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":64,"biggest_visible_risk":"Anchor-based coder calibration, discrepancy review, and transfer testing may collapse into standard qualitative-research training and inter-coder calibration practice, leaving little meaningful contrastive claim.","rationale":"This is the easiest proposal to pilot cleanly: analysts, synthetic material, transfer packets, blinded review, and downstream drift measures support a bounded study that could change an adoption decision. It also explicitly protects contextual disagreement and limits automated judgment. The problem is real but less consequential than the archival or care-record problems, and the proposed circuit closely resembles established-looking codebook training, practice coding, adjudication, and reliability workflows. Its empirical value is high, but strict opportunity is substantially weakened by prior-art vulnerability."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":57,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"A simplified role map could be treated downstream as authoritative and current after permissions, relationships, capacity, or coercion conditions have changed.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential and readily observable mismatch between lived care networks and institutional role records. Separating practical support, information sharing, participation, and formal authority is causally central rather than decorative, and the gateway has explicit rerouting for the dangerous cases it cannot resolve. Synthetic and authorized closed-case testing can falsify mapping accuracy, role separation, downstream comprehension, burden reduction, and discriminatory routing before live-record effects occur. Deployment across records systems and changing permissions is difficult, but the bounded first step, clear institutional owners, strict no-authority-creation rule, and reversible safeguards make this the strongest combined strict and partner opportunity."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually specific and safety-conscious, but each packages recognizable service or workflow functions in regenerative language. D and A deserve scrutiny first because they pair consequential operational problems with objective failure modes, authorized offline evidence, and clear institutional adopters. B is limited by relational dependence and difficult-to-decisive shadow evidence; C is highly testable but most vulnerable to being ordinary calibration practice.","confidence":"HIGH"}