{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C024","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":62,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":70,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"The workbench may prove to be a well-governed implementation of familiar repository deposit and digital-curation workflows whose apparent turnover advantage comes from selecting orderly collections or shifting labor to specialists and governance bodies.","rationale":"The proposal targets a credible preservation bottleneck and makes the reusable facilitator causally central through explicit intake contracts, executable transformations, selectivity, independent repository review, and regeneration. Its shadow assay can directly compare reconstructed outputs, total labor, restrictions, integrity, and purge performance under fixed eligibility. A repository and data steward offer a clear authorized partner path. Scrutiny should focus on prior-art overlap and whether repeatable technical conversion, rather than unresolved authority and contextual judgment, dominates enough cases to support a meaningful contrastive claim."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":83,"causal_archetype_fit":81,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":48,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":77,"biggest_visible_risk":"The circuit closely resembles established coder training, anchor-based calibration, adjudication, and inter-rater reliability practice, leaving little contrastive claim once the regenerative terminology is removed.","rationale":"Analyst drift and repeated senior calibration are real problems, and the proposal carefully protects contextual plurality while specifying transfer testing, false-readiness measures, and a reversible synthetic-material probe. A research team can authorize and run the study with comparatively modest infrastructure, giving it strong partner potential. However, the facilitator may simply formalize common qualitative-methods practice, and its value could arise from better training materials or clearer codebooks rather than an archetype-essential reusable circuit."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":85,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":57,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"A concise role map may be treated downstream as authoritative and current even when preferences, capacity, coercion risks, or legal documents change, creating consequential disclosure or decision-authority errors.","rationale":"This addresses a consequential and structurally credible mismatch between lived care networks and institutionally required role records. The separation of communication, participation, practical support, and legal authority is operationally precise, while eligibility screens and an offline probe make the first step reversible. The decisive uncertainty—whether eligible cases contain a repeatable translation burden and whether downstream staff correctly use the scoped maps—is partner-testable. Strict survival is tempered by likely overlap with care-network mapping and record-redesign practices, plus substantial integration, accessibility, safeguarding, and synchronization complexity."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":79,"causal_archetype_fit":68,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":50,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":70,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":57,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":58,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":68,"biggest_visible_risk":"The standing liaison may remain a case-proportional community-engagement service whose effectiveness depends on personal relationships and additional labor, rather than a separable facilitator producing regenerative turnover.","rationale":"The proposal recognizes a legitimate coordination problem and draws unusually careful boundaries among liaison activity, ethics approval, community authorization, and individual consent. Its shadow exercise is safe, but reconstructed hypothetical cycle times cannot strongly test trust formation, neutrality, community burden, or live decision quality. Participating community bodies could resolve the uncertainty empirically, yet recruiting and governing that partnership is itself part of the contested mechanism. The intervention also looks vulnerable to overlap with community-engagement offices, brokers, and standardized entry processes."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals provide unusually strong authority boundaries, rollback rules, and bounded probes. The main discriminator is whether the reusable facilitator does more than formalize a familiar service or template: A and C offer the clearest consequential outputs and partner-resolvable uncertainties, B is highly testable but especially vulnerable to standard calibration prior art, and D depends most heavily on irreducible relationships and case-proportional human labor.","confidence":"HIGH"}