{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C043","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":87,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"The contract may falsely objectify contextual or contested forecast-resolution judgments that cannot be reduced to finite outcomes and deterministic rules without losing meaning.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a credible migration and scoring-integrity problem, makes stateful behavioral equivalence causally essential, and specifies bounded offline differential tests that can directly reject the intervention. Authority, rollback, and exclusions are unusually clear. Its main scrutiny vulnerability is that event-ledger, versioning, and scoring-conformance practices may look familiar, leaving the contrastive contribution dependent on whether forecast-resolution semantics truly require this integrated contract."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":77,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":87,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":83,"scrutiny_priority":77,"biggest_visible_risk":"Decision-relevant scenario meaning may be inseparable from narrative, facilitation, and model context, making the proposed common behavioral surface either lossy or too weak to establish equivalence.","rationale":"Translation drift in water scenarios is consequential, and the offline two-representation study is safe, bounded, and capable of exposing failures. However, scenario identity, defining drivers, implications, and distinguishability embed substantive foresight judgments rather than clean component semantics. The proposal is therefore stronger as an empirical-partner opportunity to test whether a useful abstraction exists than as a strict deployable intervention."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":97,"adopter_partner_path":93,"deployability_complexity":89,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":94,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":95,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formal conformance could encode contested data-quality, missingness, and temporal judgments as technical facts, causing officials to over-trust alerts whose underlying signposts remain scientifically or politically uncertain.","rationale":"This is the clearest causal match: representation-dependent handling of time, revisions, persistence, and missingness can directly advance or suppress governed review alerts. The intervention defines precise states, operations, side effects, replay laws, and a highly discriminating event-history test. The offline first step is reversible and sharply separates advisory alerts from policy authority, giving it strong strict and partner lanes despite vulnerability to familiar event-processing and monitoring-contract prior art."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":83,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"A contract that passes functional and leakage tests may still fail to preserve participant experience and facilitator context that materially shape Delphi responses and anonymity expectations.","rationale":"Eligibility, closure, withdrawal, aggregation membership, feedback provenance, and identity separation form a concrete stateful process whose semantics can change during tool substitution. Synthetic generated-sequence and leakage testing provides a decisive bounded study, with appropriate data-protection authority and no live participants. Complexity around identity custody and metadata leakage lowers deployability somewhat, while the underlying pseudonymous workflow and conformance mechanisms may face substantial known-looking-practice scrutiny."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals use the archetype substantively and offer safe offline conformance studies, but they differ in how cleanly domain meaning can be reduced to observable state. C has the most direct operational consequence and strongest falsifiable semantics; D and A are close behind, with D favored for its consequential anonymity and aggregation boundary. B is valuable chiefly as a partner-led test of whether representation-independent scenario semantics are possible at all.","confidence":"HIGH"}