{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C043","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":79,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":81,"falsifiability_test_quality":76,"adopter_partner_path":79,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":80,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposed representation-independent surface may erase narrative, facilitation, or model context that is constitutive of scenario meaning, making conformance technically clean but substantively misleading.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a credible traceability problem and offers unusually safe, bounded adapter testing with decision-relevant falsifiers. However, scenario identity and implication semantics are difficult to reduce to black-box operations, and the planned experiment primarily establishes expressibility and divergence rather than whether substitutions preserve consequential foresight meaning."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":92,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formal conformance could convert contested missingness, timing, persistence, and data-quality judgments into hidden technical policy while creating false confidence in the signpost itself.","rationale":"Alert timing can directly alter when formal policy review occurs, and the behavioral-contract archetype is causally central to preventing silent trigger changes. The state model, temporal semantics, authority separation, offline test matrix, and decision-changing falsifiers are exceptionally concrete. A city partner could resolve the main uncertainty safely by replaying bounded histories across independent implementations."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"Constraining strategic forecasts to fixed finite outcomes and predetermined resolution rules may exclude the contextual qualifications and evolving definitions that carry their planning meaning.","rationale":"The lifecycle, closure, resolution, and scoring problem is concrete, and implementation changes could retrospectively distort institutional learning. Independent differential testing provides a strong oracle, while the synthetic corpus is bounded and reversible. The main deductions are that much of the machinery resembles mature forecasting-platform governance and that ordinary strategic claims may resist the required finite, stable outcome model."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":75,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"The contract may preserve record-state behavior while missing platform-mediated participant experience and facilitator context that materially affect Delphi responses and round-to-round comparability.","rationale":"Eligibility, withdrawal, aggregation membership, feedback provenance, and anonymity are consequential and well matched to a stateful contract. Synthetic testing offers a strong, safe partner study, including leakage checks. Strict potential is tempered by identity-service and metadata complexity, contested Delphi procedures, and the possibility that technically equivalent records do not preserve the elicitation process experienced by participants."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four are unusually complete behavioral-contract proposals with safe offline first steps, so the key discriminator is whether contract-level state behavior tightly controls a consequential real-world outcome. B has the clearest causal link and strongest bounded oracle; C follows with exact lifecycle and scoring behavior; D is compelling but must bridge procedural equivalence to participant experience; A faces the deepest risk that representation-independent testing cannot capture the governed meaning it aims to preserve.","confidence":"HIGH"}