{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C026","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":97,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The architecture may prove to be a costly, synchronization-sensitive form of predictive telemetry compression that offers no decision advantage over a standard codec or fixed-priority scheme.","rationale":"The proposal identifies an observable bandwidth and decision-context problem, makes reconstructive prediction-plus-residual communication causally central, and specifies unusually strong synchronization, audit, fallback, authority, and negative-test controls. Its capped offline replay can decisively compare total link cost, reconstruction, event capture, and fallback against strong rivals. Prior-art vulnerability and operational model-maintenance burden are the main threats, but both are directly scrutinizable."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":56,"operational_specificity":97,"falsifiability_test_quality":97,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":75,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"Procedure-mandated complete inspection or a simple registered-difference display may eliminate the proposed attention benefit while retaining less risk and governance burden.","rationale":"This is a highly partner-ready retrospective reader study with preserved raw scans, qualified human authority, explicit protected zones, injected acquisition faults, and decision-changing failure criteria. Residual-first review is structurally credible, though less clearly indispensable than in Candidate A because ordinary registration, change maps, or full traversal may capture most of the value. The proposal remains attractive because a bounded study can resolve that uncertainty without changing maintenance decisions."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":49,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":66,"deployability_complexity":47,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":63,"empirical_partner_potential":81,"scrutiny_priority":72,"biggest_visible_risk":"A shared but incomplete baseline could make both controllers omit the same material fact, while acknowledgements and decompression add enough workload to erase the claimed attention benefit.","rationale":"The safety problem is consequential and the simulation is bounded and falsifiable, with strong mismatch, missingness, acknowledgement, and fallback tests. However, the residual architecture risks becoming elaborate revision highlighting layered onto a task where narrative context and complete-state exchange may be intrinsically valuable. Operational adoption requires substantial human-factors, procedural, and safety approval, making the partner path narrower despite a credible non-operational study."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":98,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":47,"operational_specificity":97,"falsifiability_test_quality":97,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":53,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"A shared or mistimed forward model may over-cancel a genuine external load, and the core approach may collapse under scrutiny into conventional model-based fault detection or observer residual generation.","rationale":"Command-copy cancellation is the strongest causal archetype fit in the cell, and the proposed simulation and hardware-in-the-loop study directly tests over-cancellation, timing error, model mismatch, protected-event capture, and simpler rivals. The first step is safely isolated from live control. Strict potential is reduced by severe prior-art vulnerability, verification complexity, and the consequences of correlated controller-supervisor model error, but a capable aerospace partner could resolve the central uncertainty empirically."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually specific, reversible, and falsifiable; the main differentiator is not study quality but whether residual representation is causally necessary rather than an elaborate version of established compression, change detection, fault-observer, or revision-highlighting practice. Candidate A offers the best balance of strict architecture and decisive replay evidence, Candidate B the clearest empirical-partner lane, Candidate D the purest causal mapping with the greatest prior-art and safety burden, and Candidate C the weakest benefit-to-operational-complexity balance.","confidence":"MODERATE"}