{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C044","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":83,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":83,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"Semantic target descriptions may either be too vague for reliable resolution or become a costly parallel representation that recreates the coupling they are meant to remove.","rationale":"The attachment-loss problem is concrete, and durable concern identity, explicit ambiguity, provenance, and lifecycle authority make the abstraction causally substantive. The synthetic revision study can decisively expose silent misbinding, but practical success depends on whether independently implemented resolvers can agree without smuggling artifact structure into the contract."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":85,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"A contract expressive enough for natural conversation may still permit materially different experiences, while a tighter contract may remove the situated judgment that made the wizard prototype useful.","rationale":"The proposal isolates a consequential validity gap in wizard-to-automation handoff and makes the behavioral boundary essential rather than decorative. Its offline fake-and-wizard comparison, seeded confirmation and idempotence violations, explicit side-effect rules, and clear research and service authority create both a strong strict case and an unusually actionable partner study."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"The semantic event contract may normalize instrumentation without establishing that the resulting longitudinal measures remain valid or comparable for the usability questions analysts actually ask.","rationale":"Presentation-coupled telemetry is a credible problem, and metamorphic redesign tests plus privacy exclusions give the intervention a bounded and decision-relevant evaluation. However, the approach resembles familiar semantic event modeling and adapter normalization, and its carefully limited claim may leave less contrastive value once metric validity and task changes are excluded."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"A single cross-modality task contract may become a lowest-common-denominator model that omits modality-specific agency or accommodations while still certifying nominal conformance.","rationale":"Inconsistent validation, recovery, and duplicate-submission behavior across modalities is important, and the shared task-state contract directly governs those outcomes. The two-adapter sandbox, seeded invariant failures, accessibility review, and explicit production exclusions are strong, though multi-modality adoption is complex and the core contract-based workflow pattern appears comparatively vulnerable to established-looking alternatives."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals use the archetype causally and provide unusually bounded sandbox tests. B and D lead because they govern consequential user-facing state transitions and irreversible side effects; A offers the strongest apparent contrastive angle but faces a harder semantic-resolution feasibility question, while C has a credible partner study but the greatest visible exposure to standard semantic-analytics practice and construct-validity limits.","confidence":"HIGH"}