{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C039","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"The contract's tolerance and derivative rules may either mask consequential evaluator differences or accidentally standardize numerical algorithms rather than abstract scientific behavior.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a consequential attribution and substitution problem and makes representation independence causally central rather than decorative. Its bounded synthetic release, independent evaluators, corrupted implementations, boundary cases, and preregistered tolerances form a strong decision-changing test. The scientific-model-versus-encoding distinction is unusually explicit, and the first step is safe and reversible. Its main weaknesses are a somewhat indirect adopter path and the possibility that existing clients already consume sufficiently abstract property APIs, which would sharply reduce the operational benefit."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":70,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":81,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"An internally consistent ledger cannot repair missing, ambiguous, or false physical-lot events and may create unjustified confidence in inventory accuracy.","rationale":"The accounting, ancestry, atomicity, idempotency, and immutable-correction failures are important and map tightly to the archetype. The generated sequence tests, mutation tests, and read-only migration rehearsal are excellent partner-resolvable evidence steps. A laboratory information-system owner and material custodian provide a credible adoption path. However, the intervention resembles familiar ledger, transactional inventory, and event-history practices, and legacy ambiguity, access control, signatures, and physical reconciliation make deployment materially harder than the synthetic oracle suggests."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":79,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":75,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":78,"scrutiny_priority":76,"biggest_visible_risk":"Tolerance-based structural equivalence may be non-transitive or omit scientifically meaningful distinctions, undermining stable identity and substitution decisions.","rationale":"Representation-changing metamorphic tests directly target the stated failure, and the ordered-periodic scope is responsibly bounded. The sandbox is safe, specific, and capable of falsifying both the diagnosis and contract. Nevertheless, equivalence, canonicalization, unit conversion, and parser abstraction are highly natural responses to this domain, making the contrastive claim visibly vulnerable to prior art. The proposal also risks conflating geometric equivalence with identity, while the initial test does not establish that downstream scientific decisions materially improve."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"Simulator conformance may manufacture false confidence because real firmware, timing, calibration, and hardware safety behavior can dominate the experimental outcome.","rationale":"This is the most consequential problem and has the strongest bounded partner study: two structurally different fakes, fault injection, mutation checks, explicit lifecycle invariants, and a firm separation between software eligibility and hardware qualification. Authority, exclusions, and rollback are exceptionally clear. The archetype is essential to separating declared protocol semantics from vendor command representation. Its strict claim is tempered by visible resemblance to conventional device abstraction and state-machine practice, plus the substantial gap between non-actuating tests and safe, scientifically comparable hardware execution."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually testable and safely bounded, so the main discriminator is resilience of the remaining contrastive claim. A offers the cleanest strict opportunity by separating scientific-model releases from evaluator encodings; D is the strongest empirical-partner opportunity but carries a larger simulator-to-hardware validity gap. B has a credible laboratory partner path but is more exposed to standard ledger practice and missing physical facts. C is coherent but most vulnerable to established-looking structure-equivalence and canonicalization approaches.","confidence":"MODERATE"}