{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C035","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":77,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":80,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":64,"deployability_complexity":42,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":75,"biggest_visible_risk":"The participant-authored meaning model and continual validation may consume more dialogue time than they save while privileging propositional meanings that fit the card structure.","rationale":"The proposal targets consequential false agreement and disagreement with a genuinely reconstructive expectation-plus-residual loop, not merely a glossary. Its tabletop test has decision-changing failure criteria and unusually strong speaker authority, bypass, and rollback protections. The main weakness is practical: meaning profiles, translation caveats, versioning, validation, audits, and synchronization impose heavy overhead, and the approach may systematically miss narrative, embodied, or strategically unarticulated meaning."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":58,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"A frozen commitment graph may encode one faction's contested theology as the neutral baseline and thereby suppress precisely the implications the review must discover.","rationale":"This combines a consequential institutional problem, a causally central predictive-residual architecture, clear decision authority, and an unusually credible read-only retrospective test using completed revision archives. Held-out sections, rival interpretive mappings, independent full-text review, mandatory bypasses, and explicit cost comparison make the decisive uncertainties falsifiable. Construction of the commitment graph is difficult and resembles dependency mapping or consistency review, but the governed reconstruction, plural-model comparison, and fallback loop leave a meaningful contrastive claim worth scrutinizing."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":75,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":69,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"Student-specific predictions can anchor reviewers to prior performance and suppress valid improvement or alternative interpretations in ways concentrated by language, tradition, or argumentative style.","rationale":"The bounded retrospective design is highly executable: eligible data, held-out sequential responses, full-marking adjudication, explicit bypasses, and measurable cost and equity outcomes are all specified. It offers a strong empirical-partner lane and keeps consequential grading outside scope. Strict potential is weaker because learner models, rubric prediction, mastery tracking, and automated feedback are close-looking rivals, while the educational value of reading expected reasoning may undermine the claimed attention savings."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":70,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"Descriptive event coding can omit meaning carried by routine wording, performance, silence, or material context, causing apparently reconstructable residuals to hide interpretively decisive evidence.","rationale":"This is the cleanest technical realization of the archetype: scoped sequence prediction, typed residuals, version-compatible reconstruction, walk-forward testing, independent raw review, drift monitoring, and automatic decompression form a coherent causal loop. The retrospective corpus pilot is bounded, reversible, partner-ready, and capable of rejecting the intervention. Its lower-stakes scholarly objective limits problem importance, and sequence modeling, anomaly detection, diffs, and exception review make prior-art vulnerability substantial despite the stronger governance architecture."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"B offers the best balance of consequence, causal specificity, institutional authority, and decisive retrospective testing. D is the strongest archetype and empirical test fit but addresses a less consequential objective and looks more exposed to standard sequence-analysis approaches. C is exceptionally testable and partner-ready but faces anchoring harms and close educational-technology rivals. A is distinctive and carefully safeguarded, yet its operating burden and difficulty formalizing meaning make successful deployment least credible.","confidence":"HIGH"}