{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C031","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The shared expectation model may suppress precisely the unfamiliar, minority, or cross-driver evidence that horizon scanning is meant to discover, while its maintenance and audit burden erases the attention savings.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a credible attention bottleneck and makes residual representation causally central rather than decorative. It specifies synchronization, reconstruction, raw audits, protected bypasses, fallback, authority, and a strong shadow comparison whose results can reject deployment. Its main weaknesses are substantial modeling overhead and dependence on analysts translating ambiguous evidence into a stable structured driver schema."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":88,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":57,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"Overlapping actions and coincident external change may make the self-generated component non-identifiable, allowing the filter to cancel independent evidence or criticism on weak attribution.","rationale":"This is the strongest causal use of the archetype: an outbound action copy predicts reafferent evidence, and the residual is the information of interest. The reflexive-confirmation problem is consequential, the retrospective shadow study is authorized and decision-relevant, and false cancellation is explicitly measurable. The decisive uncertainty—whether the model improves attribution beyond simple timing and provenance tags—is well suited to partner testing, although operational attribution may remain intrinsically difficult."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":77,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":65,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"Predefined response models may recast legitimate adaptation and low-level dissent as error, reproducing playbook bias through the hierarchical filter.","rationale":"A completed tabletop provides an unusually tractable partner study with complete records, bounded authority, safe rollback, and measurable reconstruction and cross-layer findings. The hierarchy is structurally relevant to coordination failures, but much of the intervention resembles a highly governed inject-response matrix and after-action review. Model construction and detailed event coding may consume the evaluator effort it aims to save, and the proposal's value depends on demonstrating added cross-team findings rather than merely compressing chronology."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":69,"causal_archetype_fit":75,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":50,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":65,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"Displaying predicted prior responses may anchor experts and reduce genuine reconsideration, so the attention-saving mechanism could directly degrade the elicitation objective.","rationale":"The crossover test is exceptionally bounded, safe, inexpensive, and capable of changing a decision through direct measures of anchoring, rationale quality, workload, and minority preservation. However, the underlying burden is less consequential than the other candidates, and the intervention is visibly close to prefilled forms, tracked changes, and adaptive questionnaires. The predictive layer may add little beyond explicit confirmation and delta entry while creating a first-order anchoring hazard."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"B and A deserve first scrutiny because their residual mechanisms address consequential information-selection failures and retain meaningful contrasts against simpler rivals. C offers a strong empirical-partner study but has a more familiar evaluation shape. D is the easiest experiment, yet its lower problem importance, visible neighboring practices, and mechanism-induced anchoring risk reduce strict opportunity despite high testability.","confidence":"HIGH"}