{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C040","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":77,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"The abstract corpus may hide parser- or method-specific context that examiners need to judge the reliability and meaning of recovered artifacts.","rationale":"The proposal identifies consequential representation coupling and makes the archetype essential through an opaque corpus, explicit laws, and executable substitution criteria. Its synthetic first study is authorized, reversible, and capable of exposing contract defects, but scientific interpretation differences may resist abstraction, and building adequate fixtures and provenance semantics is comparatively complex."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":80,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"Software-level indistinguishability may contribute little to actual blindness if participants recognize exercises from scheduling, materials, case facts, or administrator behavior outside the declared boundary.","rationale":"The role-sensitive state machine, immutable submission, explicit disclosure transition, and leakage comparison form a precise and safely testable intervention. A laboratory quality program is a plausible partner, but the problem's practical importance depends heavily on whether software observables are a decisive source of recognition rather than one of many external cues."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":85,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"A shared abstraction may erase source-specific legal and collection context, making event equivalence or adequate observation appear more determinate than the underlying records justify.","rationale":"The proposal targets a credible source of longitudinal-analysis error and uses the archetype causally: event identity, recorded-at knowledge, corrections, and observation sufficiency become behavioral semantics rather than row conventions. The three-way event/no-event/unknown result is a meaningful bounded contrast, while two synthetic representations and predeclared as-of tests give a partner a decisive, safe study."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"The contract may omit jurisdictionally or scientifically material record features and falsely label two unlike continuity histories as behaviorally equivalent.","rationale":"Evidence continuity is plainly consequential, the state transitions and invariants are unusually concrete, and a quality authority can run the proposed offline comparison with little operational risk. It has an excellent partner path and manageable pilot, though custody state machines, append-preserved corrections, and conformance testing look comparatively vulnerable to nearby established practices, narrowing the surviving contrastive claim."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four are structurally strong applications of an opaque abstract state machine plus black-box conformance testing. C leads because its explicit treatment of temporal knowledge and insufficient observation creates the clearest consequential semantic contrast and the most decision-changing synthetic study; D offers the strongest adopter path, A the deepest but most technically demanding corpus boundary, and B the safest pilot but the greatest dependence on causes outside the component.","confidence":"HIGH"}