{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C030","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":35,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":59,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":57,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"The core architecture may collapse under scrutiny into conventional predictive video coding plus operational safeguards, leaving little meaningful contrastive claim.","rationale":"The constrained-link problem is credible, the residual mechanism is causally central, and the offline comparison is unusually bounded and decision-relevant. Originals remain authoritative and fallback is explicit. However, matched prediction, residual tiles, keyframes, checksums, drift monitoring, and bitrate allocation look closely adjacent to ordinary codec functions; the proposal must show that its setup-specific governance and independent audits create material value beyond a configured proxy codec. Endpoint synchronization and audit overhead may also erase savings."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":83,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":90,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"A timing or model error could attenuate an external voice, alarm, or equipment fault precisely when it overlaps the predicted production sound.","rationale":"Copied equipment commands provide a genuine causal input that distinguishes the proposal from generic noise reduction and makes the residual archetype essential. The intervention is tightly scoped to an optional monitoring path, preserves raw recordings and instant bypass, and proposes a strong shadow test with protected-signal challenges and independent adjudication. Its decisive uncertainties—repeatability, synchronization, listening burden, and protected-event detection—are measurable with a willing sound partner. Live deployment remains technically and safety sensitive, but the first study is bounded and reversible."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":53,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":64,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":71,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"Existing render caching, dependency invalidation, differential rendering, and selective rerender workflows may absorb most of the claimed contrast despite the added audit governance.","rationale":"Repeated VFX computation is consequential, and the proposal gives a precise reconstruction, provenance, audit, and complete-render fallback regime. Archived version transitions offer an excellent authorized test bed with objective compute and fidelity outcomes plus blinded reviewer decisions. The main weakness is distinctiveness: the operational core is close to established incremental-render and caching concepts, while global illumination, simulation, denoising, and temporal dependencies may force frequent full renders. Even so, its strong partner pathway and safe retrospective study justify early scrutiny."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":80,"causal_archetype_fit":65,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":44,"operational_specificity":82,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":79,"deployability_complexity":43,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":49,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":61,"biggest_visible_risk":"Creating and maintaining reliable structured observations may consume as much attention as full dailies review while suppressing contextual or unmodeled deviations.","rationale":"Late continuity discoveries are credible, and the retrospective test is safe and capable of rejecting the intervention. However, the proposal depends on an extensive manifest and observation layer spanning heterogeneous creative, technical, consent, and safety variables. Much of the mechanism resembles exception reporting around continuity logs, while residual reconstruction appears less causally necessary than in the signal-processing proposals. Context loss, surveillance concerns, and deviations outside predefined variables materially weaken strict potential, though a motivated production partner could still test the workload tradeoff."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually specific, reversible, and falsifiable, but they separate mainly on whether prediction-relative residuals are indispensable and whether a meaningful contrast can survive adjacent practice. B has the clearest causal distinction; C has the strongest low-risk empirical-partner study despite prior-art exposure; A is highly testable but especially codec-like; D bears the largest human-modeling burden and the weakest necessity for reconstructive residuals.","confidence":"HIGH"}