{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C036","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":87,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":58,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":75,"biggest_visible_risk":"Researcher and participant effects may be recursively co-produced, making the proposed cancellation conceptually invalid and liable to subtract the interactional phenomenon of interest.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential attribution problem and makes the predictive self-effect loop causally essential, with unusually strong provenance, bypass, audit, and fallback provisions. Its six-meeting shadow pilot is authorized and decision-relevant. However, prospective prediction, semantic coding, synchronization, participant review, and raw-record auditing create substantial overhead, and the required additive separation is least credible in precisely the reflexive settings targeted."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"Displaying the prior roster may anchor recall, causing participants to confirm visible ties while overlooking additions or preserving obsolete classifications.","rationale":"Repeated sensitive roster elicitation is a concrete burden, and reconstructing current state from a versioned prior plus explicit deltas is central rather than decorative. Silence semantics, participant confirmation, expiry, independent re-enumeration, and consent-scoped fallback make the intervention bounded and safe. Panel prefilling and change-only questionnaires look like close rivals, weakening distinctiveness, but the reconstructive, audited protocol retains a meaningful contrast. The offline paired-wave test is immediately feasible, although a later participant study is required to resolve anchoring and burden effects."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":69,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":78,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":57,"deployability_complexity":42,"authority_safety_reversibility":89,"strict_potential":55,"empirical_partner_potential":69,"scrutiny_priority":60,"biggest_visible_risk":"Decomposing living, relational ritual competence into predicted transitions may train surface conformity, freeze one variant, and damage the apprenticeship relationship.","rationale":"The hierarchy of residuals and authority-specific escalation is structurally coherent, and uncued rehearsals provide a strong falsification test. Safety boundaries and community control are explicit. Yet the initial scarcity problem is asserted rather than evidenced, council-sanctioned model construction would be costly, and the proposed system may consume more knowledge-keeper attention than it releases. Adoption also depends on unusually specific local authority, trust, and representability conditions, limiting a clear partner path."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":63,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"Consequential ethnographic meaning may reside in apparently routine narrative detail, so accurate skeleton reconstruction can still produce systematically inferior interpretation.","rationale":"Analyst-attention constraints and delayed recognition of changing access practices are plausible and consequential. The proposal supplies a bounded shadow workflow, protected full-note bypasses, raw-note preservation, independent review, subgroup tests, and explicit rollback. Its retrospective pilot can directly determine whether time savings survive maintenance costs and whether residual packets miss material interpretation. Distinctiveness is vulnerable because it resembles structured qualitative coding, critical-incident triage, and priority tagging, while the strongest empirical uncertainty is whether narrative context can safely be compressed at all."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"B and D offer the clearest partner-ready shadow studies: both use existing authorized data, preserve full records, and define comparisons capable of stopping deployment. B leads because its reconstructed state has a more objective fidelity criterion and a simpler adopter workflow. A is mechanistically distinctive but rests on fragile separability; C has strong governance language but the weakest demonstrated problem and highest sociocultural deployment burden.","confidence":"HIGH"}