{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C035","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":81,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":79,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":93,"biggest_visible_risk":"The descriptive event coding may omit precisely the subtle contextual meaning that full ritual records preserve, making apparently faithful reconstruction substantively lossy.","rationale":"This is the clearest predictive-codec proposal: scoped pre-observation expectations, typed residuals, version-compatible reconstruction, independent raw audits, and automatic decompression form a causally essential loop rather than decorative anomaly detection. The retrospective test is unusually decision-relevant and safe. Its main uncertainty is whether predictable coded structure is actually the review bottleneck and whether modeling plus auditing saves net attention."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":75,"causal_archetype_fit":80,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":65,"deployability_complexity":55,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"Authoring and repeatedly validating speaker-specific meaning profiles may consume as much dialogue time as ordinary clarification while falsely formalizing fluid, narrative, or contested meaning.","rationale":"The reciprocal, speaker-controlled design is structurally thoughtful, bounded, reversible, and testable through reconstruction exercises. However, the intervention depends on meanings being sufficiently stable and profile-like to predict, and mandatory speaker validation weakens the claimed time-saving mechanism. A willing partner could resolve that uncertainty, but adoption burden and risks of manufactured commensurability reduce strict potential."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":59,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The frozen commitment graph may encode one faction's contested theology as the predictive baseline, so the system can suppress consequences lying outside its own interpretive ontology.","rationale":"The problem is consequential and the proposal gives residuals a real role in tracing local wording changes through doctrinal dependencies. Authority, bypass, archival shadow testing, rival mappings, and fallback are strong. Yet building a defensible generative commitment graph is costly, consequences may not be predictably observable, and disagreements can lack an independent fidelity standard. A bounded institutional archive study could still decisively test usefulness and systematic blind spots."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":62,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":97,"adopter_partner_path":94,"deployability_complexity":83,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":97,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"Student-specific predictions can anchor reviewers to prior performance and systematically suppress valid improvement or alternative interpretations, especially for underrepresented styles and languages.","rationale":"This addresses a familiar, measurable workload with clear actors, abundant retrospective data, explicit decision-changing metrics, and a highly feasible partner study. Prediction, signed residuals, reconstruction, feedback actions, audits, and fallback are coherently connected. Its chief weakness is prior-art vulnerability: learner models, rubric triage, mastery tracking, and human-reviewed educational analytics are known-looking neighbors, so survival depends on the reconstructive residual loop yielding a meaningful contrast."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A offers the strongest strict architecture and D the strongest empirical-partner path. C is consequential but depends on a contested and expensive semantic graph. B has excellent safeguards but the weakest net-efficiency case because profile authoring and speaker validation closely reproduce the clarification work it aims to compress.","confidence":"HIGH"}