{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C028","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":65,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The residual layer could suppress materially inculpatory, exculpatory, or integrity-relevant context when the reference model is wrong in a way sparse raw-window audits do not detect.","rationale":"The attention-overload problem is consequential, and prediction-plus-structured-residual reconstruction is causally central rather than decorative. The proposal sharply bounds software scope, preserves immutable evidence, defines protected bypasses and automatic fallback, and offers a strong blinded crossover against both full review and static filters. Its contrast may survive as an auditable reconstructive residual workflow, although anomaly triage, filtering, and timeline summarization are close-looking rivals and operational model maintenance is substantial."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":94,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":96,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"Multivariate process monitoring, sequence-aware quality control, and chromatographic anomaly review may leave little meaningful contrast beyond a more elaborate governance and presentation wrapper.","rationale":"This addresses a high-stakes measurement-validity problem with unusually concrete observables, regimes, stopping rules, rivals, and a partner-executable frozen-model study. Structured joint residuals are mechanistically relevant to detecting correlated within-limit changes, and the retrospective shadow design is highly reversible. Scrutiny should focus on whether the claimed architectural contrast exceeds established laboratory quality-control and chemometric monitoring practices and whether auditing and maintenance consume the saved attention."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":79,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":54,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"A deterministic workflow engine with exception rules, heartbeat checks, and periodic reconciliation may deliver nearly the same result more simply, making the predictive-residual framing nonessential.","rationale":"Custody discrepancies are real and consequential, and the proposal supplies named owners, complete-ledger recovery, protected bypasses, physical reconciliation, and a clean synthetic or closed-record test. The state-transition formulation is credible and readily testable, but custody workflows are already naturally represented as finite-state rules; the strongest simple rival could erase most of the claimed contrast while avoiding model and synchronization overhead."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":87,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":77,"deployability_complexity":47,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The forward model may be unable to separate the program's measurement footprint from confounding external changes, spillovers, selective reporting, and endogenous implementation, making residuals ambiguous or self-confirming.","rationale":"The proposal identifies an important and structurally apt problem: agency action changes the observation process, so an action-conditioned expectation is causally meaningful. Aggregate-only scope, rights-critical bypasses, independent-source audits, interpretive limits, and retrospective evaluation provide strong safeguards. However, the decisive model is harder to identify and validate than in the forensic laboratory proposals, partner independence may be fragile, and even bounded residual displays could invite unsupported causal interpretations."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A and B are the strongest immediate scrutiny targets: A has the best balance of potentially durable architectural contrast and safe falsifiability, while B offers the clearest empirical-partner study but appears more exposed to established quality-control approaches. D is more distinctive and socially consequential but faces a harder identification problem. C is exceptionally testable and deployable, yet its residual architecture is most vulnerable to collapse into deterministic workflow validation.","confidence":"HIGH"}