{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C045","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposed contract may largely restate a representation-independent exact-checking boundary that the existing verifier already implements.","rationale":"The proposal targets a consequential auditability failure and makes the abstraction barrier causally essential: coverage, exact evidence, and terminal verdicts must be separated from trace layout. Its offline two-adapter pilot, frozen fixtures, seeded corruptions, independent parsing, and explicit halt rules create a bounded test capable of rejecting the intervention. The main scrutiny question is whether this boundary is genuinely absent rather than merely undocumented."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":89,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Declaring and validating uniform labeled-graph sampling may be standard experimental protocol, leaving little contrastive value for the larger component-and-conformance apparatus.","rationale":"The labeled-versus-isomorphism-class weighting problem is precise, observable, and capable of silently changing conclusions. Exhaustive small-n enumeration, two differently encoded samplers, fixed events, and a biased mutant provide an unusually decisive and inexpensive partner study. Its weakness is distinctiveness: much of the remedy may reduce to formally stating the probability space, preserving outputs, and verifying the sampler's measure."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":49,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"An opaque polynomial type specified by finitely supported coefficient functions is highly vulnerable to being an already-standard library abstraction rather than a meaningful remaining contrast.","rationale":"Representation leakage into downstream proofs is credible, and the isolated 20-lemma corpus gives maintainers a bounded way to measure whether opacity and the coefficient interface suffice. The intervention is structurally clean and reversible, but it resembles a canonical abstract-data-type treatment of polynomials; proof migration cost and existing coefficient-level interfaces could erase most of the claimed opportunity."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":80,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":43,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":79,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":60,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":64,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":67,"biggest_visible_risk":"Characterizing completion by dense embedding and a universal extension property may be a conventional mathematical interface, while packaging a chosen extension operator could over-specify it.","rationale":"Construction-dependent theorem proofs are a real formalization problem, and the frozen theorem corpus plus assumption ledger can reveal representative leakage or hidden axioms. However, the proposed universal-property boundary looks intrinsically close to standard completion mathematics, the closure-based comparison is substantial to implement, and equivalence up to isometry may not solve downstream reliance on definitional equality or automation."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals use an opaque semantic contract to separate mathematical meaning from representation. A and B deserve first scrutiny because they combine concrete observable failures with decisive bounded pilots; C and D are credible formal-library studies but are more exposed to standard-abstraction prior art and proof-engineering costs. B offers the fastest empirical resolution, while A has the stronger balance of consequential strict opportunity and partner-testability.","confidence":"HIGH"}