{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C026","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":67,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The expected-scan model could explain away a subtle material change, while the safeguards and frequent fallback needed to control that risk could erase the attention benefit.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential repeat-inspection attention problem with unusually explicit eligibility, reconstruction, audit sampling, protected zones, fallback, and retained human disposition authority. Its bounded retrospective reader study directly compares full review, simple registered differences, and residual-first review and can reject the architecture. The main vulnerability is that model-based residual review resembles sophisticated change-detection practice and may add substantial registration and governance burden without outperforming simpler rivals."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":69,"deployability_complexity":55,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":80,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"A shared-but-wrong baseline could cause both controllers to omit the same material fact, and requiring full reconstruction and acknowledgements may impose as much burden as the established handoff.","rationale":"The baseline fingerprint, typed residuals, explicit missingness, acknowledgements, protected bypasses, and simulation-only first step make the mechanism coherent and testable. However, the claimed attention problem is less firmly demonstrated than in the other proposals, and the intervention may collapse into revision highlighting plus a checklist. Operational adoption faces unusually high human-factors, procedural, training, and safety-assurance barriers even if simulation results are favorable."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":97,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":49,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"Model or timing error could over-cancel a genuine external load or fault, creating a correlated blind spot in a safety-critical supervisory path.","rationale":"The outgoing-command copy is causally essential rather than decorative, and the proposed simulation and hardware-in-the-loop injections can decisively test separability, over-cancellation, latency, fallback occupancy, and performance against simpler observers. Raw-limit bypasses and shadow-only authorization make the first study reversible. Strict potential is constrained by verification burden, timing sensitivity, shared-model failure modes, and the possibility that conventional observer or command-conditioned monitoring already captures most of the value."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"Residual and fallback bursts may consume the constrained link precisely when an unexpected event requires full context, eliminating the claimed capacity advantage.","rationale":"This is the cleanest end-to-end use of reconstructive residual communication: matched predictors, signed corrections, synchronization, explicit missingness, raw audits, error budgets, and fallback all directly serve a real bandwidth constraint. The completed-sortie replay is authorized, bounded, data-rich, and capable of changing a go/no-go decision while comparing against standard codecs, fixed prioritization, decimation, and threshold reporting. It also offers a plausible deployment path from offline replay to shadow display without initially altering flight decisions."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals provide unusually strong safety boundaries and falsifiers. D should receive scrutiny first because its archetype is directly tied to a measurable resource constraint and can be evaluated cheaply on complete historical data. A is the strongest human-attention alternative. C has the purest causal mapping but a harder safety and verification case, while B is most vulnerable to the finding that a simpler complete-state or revision-highlighting workflow is preferable.","confidence":"HIGH"}