{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C028","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":81,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"A predictor blind spot could suppress materially inculpatory, exculpatory, or integrity-relevant context in a setting where even rare misses are consequential.","rationale":"The residual-plus-reconstruction architecture is causally central, unusually well bounded, and supported by a strong blinded crossover test, immutable source preservation, independent raw audits, protected bypasses, and immediate fallback. Its main weakness is the difficult burden of validating heterogeneous software and artifacts to an evidentiary standard; frequent fallback and audit may erase the attention benefit."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The predictive layer may add little beyond deterministic workflow validation, exception rules, and periodic physical reconciliation.","rationale":"Custody transitions provide a concrete state model, named reviewers, observable discrepancies, verified silence, physical re-anchoring, and a highly feasible synthetic or closed-record study. The first step is reversible and institutionally authorized. Prior-art vulnerability is comparatively high because much of the functionality resembles mature evidence-tracking and workflow-exception systems, so scrutiny should focus on whether structured state residuals deliver a meaningful advantage over strong rules."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"The model could normalize gradual analytical degradation or omit a consequential raw-trace feature that experienced full review would detect.","rationale":"This has the strongest combination of consequential problem, measurement-rich setting, essential joint-residual mechanism, precise scope, qualified authority, and decision-changing retrospective test. Batch data permit controlled seeding, temporal holdouts, regime checks, reconstruction measurement, and direct comparison with mandatory QC and full review. Existing QC and multivariate monitoring are strong rivals, but correlated signed residuals with governed raw-data fallback leave a clear contrastive claim to scrutinize."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":96,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":82,"operational_specificity":87,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":73,"deployability_complexity":48,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":83,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"The action-conditioned model may be unable to separate the program's measurement footprint from confounding external change, creating residuals that invite unsupported causal or operational interpretation.","rationale":"The problem is important and the efference-copy mapping is substantive rather than decorative, with strong rights bypasses and a safe retrospective first step. However, heterogeneous reporting systems, limited independent sources, spillovers, shocks, changing boundaries, privacy constraints, and institutional incentives make reconstruction and validation much harder than in the laboratory proposals. It is primarily a partner-study opportunity, with lower strict potential because residual monitoring cannot resolve causal attribution and may duplicate simpler dashboards or formal evaluations."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals share a strong residual-first architecture with immutable or reconstructible source access, independent raw auditing, protected bypasses, frozen models, and reversible retrospective studies. The decisive separation is empirical tractability: toxicology batches and custody ledgers offer bounded ground truth and strong comparators, while forensic timelines are more heterogeneous and crime-program monitoring is exposed to confounding, weak source independence, and governance complexity.","confidence":"HIGH"}