{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C046","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":77,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"A common concentration contract may conceal materially different measurands, sampling supports, applicability conditions, or uncertainty models, making nominal conformance scientifically misleading.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a consequential and observable substitution failure, and representation independence is causally central rather than decorative. Tagged nonnumeric failure states, capability scoping, calibration identity, temporal support, uncertainty, and explicit limits on what conformance proves create a strong contrast with simple normalization or adapters. The disconnected two-simulator study is safe and decision-changing, although meaningful validation beyond software semantics will ultimately require metrology and sensor partners."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":83,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"Simulation conformance can establish state-machine consistency while failing to predict safety-critical physical behavior such as stopping, retraction, sensing, and delayed motion.","rationale":"The physical-motion problem is highly consequential, and the distinction between acceptance and sensor-confirmed completion makes the contract substantively useful. The state table, side-effect matrix, injected faults, and hardware-disconnected first step are precise and reversible. Strict deployment is burdened by controller-specific physics and mandatory hardware qualification, but an authorized instrument partner could resolve the decisive uncertainty through bounded staged testing, making this especially strong in the empirical-partner lane."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposal may amount to a well-specified provenance or event-ledger abstraction whose principal elements are vulnerable to close existing practice, leaving little contrastive claim after scrutiny.","rationale":"This is the cleanest strict opportunity: storage representation is directly causal, the abstract state and invariants are crisp, and an independent model enables exact differential testing across generated histories. The offline experiment is inexpensive, safe, reversible, and capable of rejecting the intervention. Its main weakness is distinctiveness rather than feasibility; append-only lineage, opaque identifiers, typed events, and model-based conformance have a strongly standard-practice appearance."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":63,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":78,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"The declared tolerance band may either hide fabrication-relevant geometric differences or require representation-specific semantics, undermining the claimed common abstraction.","rationale":"The proposal has a bounded offline test, explicit geometric laws, and strong separation from fabrication authority. Representation independence is central to the identified backend-substitution problem. However, equivalence among analytic, voxel, polygonal, and implicit geometry is unusually sensitive to discretization and boundary policy, and the core opaque-geometry-plus-property-tests approach appears especially exposed to prior-art convergence. A partner could help set physically meaningful tolerances, but the proposed first study may not resolve that decisive issue."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four are unusually complete manifestations of the same opaque-ADT and shared-conformance-suite pattern, so the main separator is whether a meaningful domain-specific claim survives beyond standard interface engineering. A offers the best balance of strict and partner potential; C is the strongest low-risk software test but more prior-art-vulnerable; B is the strongest partner-led opportunity but has costly physical qualification; D is bounded and safe but depends heavily on a potentially unstable tolerance abstraction.","confidence":"HIGH"}