{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C031","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":57,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"Model construction, synchronization, auditing, and fallback may consume the attention supposedly saved while scenario expectations suppress unfamiliar or minority evidence.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a credible attention-allocation failure and makes residual reconstruction, synchronization, raw audits, protected bypasses, and decompression integral rather than decorative. Its historical shadow comparison has decision-changing workload and omission criteria. The contrast is vulnerable because structured exception reporting and scanning prioritization may look close to simpler practices, and the elaborate shared model may prove too costly."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":77,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":61,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"Predefined response models may recast legitimate adaptation as error and require nearly as much evaluator effort as reviewing the finite exercise record directly.","rationale":"The hierarchical residual mechanism is structurally credible for surfacing cross-team failures, and the completed-exercise shadow study is unusually authorized, bounded, reversible, and measurable. Participant contestability and independent safety authority are strong. Its strict case is weaker because tabletop evaluation already has checklists and complete chronologies, while constructing layered predictive models may merely relocate review effort."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":73,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":48,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":62,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"Showing predicted prior judgments can anchor experts and manufacture apparent stability or convergence, undermining the independent reconsideration Delphi rounds are intended to elicit.","rationale":"This is highly testable through the proposed crossover, with explicit missingness, from-scratch controls, reconstruction checks, and expert-controlled fallback. Deployment is comparatively manageable. However, its core operation is vulnerable to looking like governed prefilled forms or tracked changes, and the likely attention saving is inseparable from a direct anchoring hazard, limiting strict potential despite strong partner-study value."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":89,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"Overlapping interventions and uncertain causal pathways may make self-generated echoes non-identifiable, enabling independent evidence or criticism to be wrongly discounted.","rationale":"The reflexive evidence loop is consequential, and the outbound-action copy is causally essential to the proposed distinction rather than a generic prioritization layer. The proposal preserves unexpected responses, raw sources, criticism, protected signals, and separate strategic authority, while offering a bounded retrospective comparison against simple provenance and timing tags. Attribution ambiguity is serious, but it is directly exposed through false-cancellation criteria, independent adjudication, and fallback."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals offer unusually strong shadow-mode safety and falsification designs. D merits first scrutiny because its archetype-specific causal claim is the clearest and most contrastive; A and B are strong partner opportunities whose decisive issue is whether modeling overhead defeats attention savings; C has the cleanest experiment but the weakest strict opportunity because anchoring and resemblance to simpler prefilled-response workflows strike at its core mechanism.","confidence":"HIGH"}