{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C044","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The abstraction may erase presentation-specific interaction difficulties while still encouraging analysts to treat records as longitudinally comparable usability evidence.","rationale":"The instrumentation-coupling problem is credible and the task-state contract, adapter gate, metamorphic transformations, privacy exclusions, and explicit version boundary form a specific and safely testable intervention. Its contrastive claim is narrower and stronger than event-name standardization, but semantic analytics layers and tracking contracts look like close conceptual rivals, and the decisive mapping from concrete events to user intent may require judgment that the oracle cannot independently validate."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"A single shared task contract could certify a lowest-common-denominator workflow that omits modality-specific agency or accommodations essential to safe and accessible use.","rationale":"This addresses consequential submission, validation, recovery, and duplicate-commit failures with an unusually concrete abstract state, transition laws, adapters, and seeded tests. A maintenance-service owner has clear authority and can resolve the key uncertainty in a synthetic two-modality sandbox with accessibility review. The main vulnerability is that modality-independent state machines, backend workflow contracts, and model-based UI testing are familiar-looking approaches, so scrutiny must determine whether a meaningful contrastive claim remains."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":84,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":92,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"The participant experience may depend on language, timing, social inference, and situated human judgment that a semantic response-act contract either excludes or overconstrains.","rationale":"The proposal targets a sharp validity gap between an unconstrained wizard-of-oz experience and later automation, and the archetype is causally central rather than decorative. The shared operator/automation boundary, deterministic fake, explicit information and booking invariants, mutation tests, and non-networked ledger create a bounded falsifiable first study. Its claim is also comparatively resilient because it concerns executable substitution of the studied behavioral envelope, while explicitly declining claims about equivalent reasoning, usability, or buildability."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":77,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":71,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"Semantic targets may become costly parallel documentation yet still fail to determine correct applicability after splits, merges, or materially changed interactions.","rationale":"Broken critique attachments are credible, and the explicit ambiguity, provenance, lifecycle authority, and synthetic revision mutations make the proposal safer and more testable than silent automatic relinking. However, the consequence is generally less severe than the other candidates, and the core resolution result may depend on substantive human interpretation rather than substitutable resolver behavior. Persistent semantic identifiers, lineage systems, and issue-tracker workflows also appear close enough to create meaningful prior-art vulnerability."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals use the archetype substantively and offer reversible synthetic studies, but they differ in what the contract can legitimately preserve. C and B put high-consequence user commitments and side effects behind executable boundaries; A risks converting inferred intent into misleading longitudinal equivalence, while D depends most heavily on human interpretation of semantic applicability. C should receive scrutiny first because it combines a comparatively distinctive substitution claim with strong safety and decisive falsifiers; B is the strongest immediate empirical-partner candidate.","confidence":"HIGH"}