{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C045","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":89,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"The elaborate component and conformance machinery may add little beyond a formally declared probability measure, abstract-edge-set use, and preserved outputs.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a concrete mathematical failure: labeled-uniform and isomorphism-class-uniform sampling are observably different populations despite a shared graph return type. The abstraction boundary is causally essential because it binds the probability measure and prevents storage order or seed mapping from becoming experimental semantics. The small-n exhaustive comparison of independently implemented edge-bit and rank-decoding samplers is unusually decisive, bounded, reversible, and capable of rejecting a biased implementation. Scrutiny should test whether the contract supplies meaningful leverage beyond a simpler experiment protocol and whether its exact claims remain enforceable for larger n."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":80,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":49,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":76,"biggest_visible_risk":"An opaque polynomial type specified by coefficient functions is sufficiently canonical-looking that scrutiny may find little contrastive contribution beyond established abstraction practice.","rationale":"Representation-coupled formal proofs are credible, and the proposed 20-lemma pilot would expose whether opacity and a coefficient-function interface actually permit reuse across list and sparse-map implementations. Maintainers and theorem owners are clear partners, and the isolated namespace makes the study safe and decision-relevant. However, the intervention resembles a standard abstract polynomial interface, while proof portability may depend heavily on the proof assistant's definitional equality and automation behavior. Its strongest lane is therefore an empirical partner study documenting actual escape hatches and proof-reuse costs."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":77,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":83,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposed proof-state algebra may inadvertently encode one branch-and-bound strategy and thus offer format independence without genuine construction independence.","rationale":"This addresses a consequential proof-integrity problem: generator-specific parsing can make incidental trace details load-bearing while obscuring lost domain coverage or invalid bounds. The frontier, coverage, exact-evidence, and terminal-verdict invariants are causally central rather than decorative. The frozen 24-fixture study, independent parsers, seeded corruptions, metamorphic reorderings, and exact checker provide a bounded test that can clearly falsify the intervention. Decision authority, trust boundaries, halt conditions, and non-publication-gating deployment are unusually explicit. Scrutiny should prioritize whether the state model is sufficiently general and whether equivalent semantic boundaries already exist in the target verifier."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":29,"operational_specificity":82,"falsifiability_test_quality":79,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":60,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":54,"empirical_partner_potential":70,"scrutiny_priority":60,"biggest_visible_risk":"Characterizing completion by a universal property and transporting results along a unique isometry is highly canonical-looking, while packaging a chosen extension operator may be redundant or over-specified.","rationale":"Construction leakage in formalized completion theorems is credible, and the frozen 12-lemma pilot could reveal hidden representative access or undeclared logical assumptions. The archetype fits, but the remaining claim is especially vulnerable to prior art because universal-property interfaces and equivalence-based transport are natural formulations of completion. The proposed comparison is also costly: a closure construction for one fixed space may not adequately test general substitutability, and proof-assistant automation may still require definitional equality. This leaves a useful partner audit but a weaker prospect of a durable contrastive claim."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually concrete and reversible, but they separate into two tiers. C and A offer crisp semantic failures with finite, adversarial tests capable of changing an adoption decision; C leads because certificate soundness is more consequential and its fixture study directly attacks coverage and evidence corruption. B and D remain plausible partner studies, but their core abstractions look more canonical from the proposal text, with D additionally facing heavier proof-engineering and generalization burdens.","confidence":"HIGH"}