{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C025","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"A shared predictive baseline could normalize recurring misstatements or control failures, causing consequential but model-conforming items to be suppressed.","rationale":"The close-review attention problem is consequential and bounded, and prediction-plus-residual reconstruction is integral rather than decorative. The proposal specifies scope, ownership, bypasses, independent raw sampling, rollback, rivals, and a decision-relevant shadow test unusually well. Its main scrutiny vulnerability is that reconciliation analytics, variance review, and anomaly detection are familiar neighbors, so the remaining contrast depends on whether the combined reconstructive architecture delivers meaningful benefit after governance and maintenance costs."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":74,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":92,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"Both entities may share the same erroneous agreement schedule or mapping, making a bilateral accounting error appear as synchronized agreement.","rationale":"This is the strongest causal use of the archetype: matched baselines, checksums, heartbeats, signed residual exchange, reconstruction, and full-state resynchronization directly address a bilateral communication and coordination problem. The read-only replay can decisively compare reconstruction fidelity, missed mismatches, effort, and fallback burden against complete schedules and a simple rival. Multi-entity governance and resemblance to transaction matching create adoption and prior-art exposure, but the reconstructive exchange claim remains comparatively crisp."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"A control can produce the expected metadata and evidence envelope while remaining substantively ineffective or manipulated.","rationale":"The proposal carefully limits prediction to the evidence envelope and preserves independent inspection, making the shadow replay safe, partner-ready, and strongly falsifiable. Its weakness is more fundamental than ordinary implementation risk: observable conformance is an incomplete proxy for the consequential property stakeholders ultimately care about. Continuous control monitoring, workflow rules, process conformance, and evidence repositories also make the remaining contrast vulnerable unless the study shows that reconstruction and residual routing catch important gaps without encouraging false assurance."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"The prior report and existing source map can omit a genuinely new disclosure obligation, allowing the model to suppress the very novelty that requires attention.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a credible review-attention problem and provides a bounded historical replay, full-document checkpoints, protected bypasses, and complete final review. However, semantic comparison, source mapping, reconstruction, and cross-document propagation make deployment demanding, while redlining, disclosure workflow, and validation systems are close rivals. Because final review remains complete and novel obligations are least predictable, scrutiny must determine whether intermediate coordination savings are substantial enough to justify the model and governance burden."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually specific, reversible, and testable; their differentiation lies less in safety than in whether the predictive-residual archetype is indispensable to the domain. B has the clearest matched-state communication mechanism, A has the most straightforward operational partner path, C is constrained by the gap between evidence conformance and control effectiveness, and D faces the greatest semantic complexity and novel-fact blind-spot risk.","confidence":"HIGH"}