{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C036","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"Interactional meaning may reside in apparently routine narrative detail that the structured encounter skeleton suppresses, producing misleadingly accurate reconstructions.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a plausible attention-allocation problem and makes prediction, residual routing, reconstruction, raw-note audit, and fallback causally central. Its retrospective pilot is bounded and decision-relevant. However, generating structured actuals, maintaining templates, and auditing suppression may duplicate full-note work, while the core compression could be incompatible with distributed qualitative meaning."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":57,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"Showing prior rosters may anchor recall and systematically suppress absent, new, or reclassified relationships despite technically correct delta reconstruction.","rationale":"Repeated sensitive roster elicitation is a concrete burden, and versioned participant-confirmed deltas are tightly matched to the archetype. The workflow, authority boundaries, explicit silence states, and rollback path are unusually clear. Its contrastive claim is vulnerable because prefilled panels and change-only questionnaires look nearby, and the proposed offline test cannot resolve the decisive participant-anchoring and comfort uncertainties; a willing longitudinal-study partner could."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":61,"causal_archetype_fit":76,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":86,"falsifiability_test_quality":83,"adopter_partner_path":55,"deployability_complexity":46,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":52,"empirical_partner_potential":67,"scrutiny_priority":60,"biggest_visible_risk":"Decomposing ritual competence into predicted transitions may train surface conformity while weakening holistic, relational, and occasion-specific judgment.","rationale":"The layered residual and escalation structure is distinctive and the proposal takes community authority, variant control, consent, and fallback seriously. Yet the initial problem is highly contingent on local acceptance, and extensive model governance, observation, audits, and council review may consume rather than release knowledge-keeper capacity. The archetype may also be fundamentally mismatched to living, restricted, or holistic practice."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":82,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Researcher and participant action may be recursively co-produced, making subtraction of a predicted researcher effect erase the very interactional phenomenon under study.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential reflexivity and attribution problem with an unusually direct archetype match: prospective action copy, bounded forward prediction, structured residual, independent raw review, and reversible fallback. The six-meeting shadow comparison can expose over-cancellation, structured model failure, unsupported attribution, and excess workload without changing field activity. Its core separability assumption is serious but explicit and partner-testable, making it the strongest scrutiny candidate."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"D offers the strongest combination of essential archetype use, meaningful contrast, and a bounded partner test of its central ontological risk. B is the most immediately deployable partner opportunity but is more exposed to standard prefill and change-only prior art. A is structurally careful but may recreate the review burden it seeks to reduce, while C has the greatest authority and adoption dependence and the highest risk of archetype-induced distortion.","confidence":"HIGH"}