{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C044","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The abstract evidence model may discard presentation-specific behavior that is essential to usability interpretation while still encouraging longitudinal comparability claims.","rationale":"The telemetry discontinuity is credible, and the abstraction barrier is causally central rather than decorative. The synthetic dual-adapter mutation study is unusually specific, safe, and capable of rejecting the intervention. Its contrastive claim is bounded, but semantic event contracts and analytics normalization look close enough to standard practice that scrutiny must determine whether the state-machine, substitution, and leakage commitments leave a meaningful distinction."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"A single cross-modality contract could erase modality-specific agency or accommodations by turning the incumbent workflow into a lowest-common-denominator specification.","rationale":"Inconsistent validation, recovery, confirmation, and retry behavior across modalities is consequential and directly caused by task semantics leaking into representations. The proposal specifies operations, invariants, extension points, authority, seeded failures, and a bounded two-adapter study with accessibility review. Its main uncertainty—whether materially different modalities can share task-level obligations without suppressing necessary accommodations—is both decisive and partner-testable."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":84,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":83,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":93,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"The studied experience may depend on situated human judgment, language interpretation, or backstage knowledge that cannot be bounded without making the prototype materially less representative.","rationale":"The gap between an unconstrained human wizard and later automation is a real evidentiary and safety problem, and representation-independent substitutability is essential to solving it. The common operator/automation boundary, confirmation and idempotence laws, deterministic fake, synthetic calendar, and seeded mutation study form a strong falsifiable package. A willing research and calendar-system partner could resolve the key uncertainty without participant data or live side effects, while the remaining claim stays appropriately limited to behavioral-envelope equivalence."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":81,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"Semantic target descriptions may either be too vague to prevent dangerous misbinding or become a costly parallel representation that recreates the coupling they are meant to remove.","rationale":"Broken critique attachments across prototype changes are credible, and explicit ambiguity, provenance, and lifecycle authority are valuable. The offline split, merge, deletion, and node-reuse study is bounded and safe. However, expected semantic identity can be difficult to specify independently of human interpretation, and conforming resolvers may still make different plausible matches; this weakens the oracle and makes deployability more dependent on sustained manual semantic annotation."}],"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. C and B should receive scrutiny first because their failures concern consequential side effects or user agency and their decisive uncertainties can be tested with identifiable partners. A is highly executable but more exposed to standard semantic-instrumentation practice and construct-loss concerns. D addresses a real workflow problem but has the hardest-to-independent oracle because semantic target identity may itself require the human judgment the resolver is intended to support.","confidence":"HIGH"}