{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C035","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"Interpretively material meaning may reside in context classified as routine or omitted by the descriptive coding scheme, making formally accurate reconstruction substantively lossy.","rationale":"This is the strongest bounded predictive-residual loop: it specifies collection scope, pre-observation prediction, reconstructable residuals, independent full-record audits, zero-tolerance bypasses, and automatic fallback. Its retrospective 60-record test can directly determine whether attention savings survive coding, maintenance, and audit costs. The main uncertainty is whether ritual records are predictable at a representation level that preserves the meaning scholars actually need."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":62,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"Prior learner expectations may anchor reviewers and systematically suppress valid alternative interpretations or genuine improvement, particularly across linguistic and interpretive styles.","rationale":"The instructional workload and delayed-feedback problem is credible, the shadow study is unusually executable, and outcomes can change a deployment decision. Human validation, full-response access, challenges, audits, and high-stakes exclusions make the first step reversible. Its contrastive claim appears more vulnerable because learner models, rubric analytics, review triage, and formative-feedback systems are close textual rivals, while per-student coding and validation may consume the proposed savings."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":76,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":74,"deployability_complexity":55,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":77,"scrutiny_priority":72,"biggest_visible_risk":"Authoring, validating, synchronizing, and auditing meaning profiles may cost more dialogue time than direct clarification while inducing false confidence in an inherently incomplete representation.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential and recognizable failure mode and gives speakers strong control, immediate decompression, and a bounded tabletop falsification test. However, the archetype is less clearly advantageous because meaning is fluid, contextual, embodied, and power-laden; converting it into prevalidated profiles may create the very false equivalence the protocol targets. The partner study is feasible, but success on constructed claim cards may transfer weakly to live dialogue."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":81,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":64,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"The frozen commitment graph may encode one contested theological interpretation as the neutral baseline, causing the residual system to suppress consequences outside its ontology.","rationale":"The problem is consequential, the predictive hierarchy is causally central rather than decorative, and the proposal distinguishes semantic consequences from ordinary redlining through versioned reconstruction, rival mappings, audits, and governed fallback. A completed revision archive permits a decisive authorized shadow test. Its chief liabilities are substantial graph-building and specialist costs, limited access to suitable partners, and the possibility that doctrinal relationships are too contested for reliable prediction."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals provide unusually strong safeguards and falsifiable shadow studies, so ranking turns mainly on whether predictive compression is likely to produce net value and retain a meaningful contrastive claim. A has the cleanest reconstructable corpus experiment; D offers the most consequential second opportunity but needs a rarer institutional partner; B is highly partnerable but closer to familiar educational analytics; C faces the deepest mismatch between representation overhead and the fluid phenomenon being compressed.","confidence":"HIGH"}