{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C046","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":63,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":70,"deployability_complexity":59,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"A common state model may suppress controller- or modality-specific distinctions that are necessary for physical safety, making simulated behavioral equivalence misleading.","rationale":"The proposal addresses consequential motion and fault semantics with an unusually concrete state machine, side-effect matrix, typed outcomes, and safe simulator-first test. The abstraction is causally central rather than decorative. Scrutiny should focus on whether useful cross-controller equivalence exists without unsafe escape clauses and whether the component-level claim remains distinctive from established instrument-control contracts. Physical qualification and heterogeneous hardware make deployment demanding, but an instrument partner could decisively test the contract under bounded authority."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":60,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention may largely reproduce familiar provenance-ledger and event-sourcing practice, leaving little contrastive claim after prior-art scrutiny.","rationale":"This is the cleanest bounded software substitution problem: identity, ancestry, custody, immutability, migration, and query behavior are all explicitly testable across materially different backends. The independent model, generated histories, held-out checks, and representation-neutral migration test could invalidate the intervention rather than merely demonstrate it. An offline synthetic study is safe and inexpensive, and a data steward has a plausible adoption path. Its main vulnerability is that append-only provenance graphs, opaque identifiers, and conformance testing look standard, so scrutiny must determine whether the proposed behavioral gate adds a meaningful distinction."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":52,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"The boundary-tolerance policy may either hide fabrication-relevant geometric differences or become so representation-specific that meaningful substitution is impossible.","rationale":"The observable classification, transform, overlap, and slicing laws give the archetype a real causal role, and the offline two-backend experiment is bounded and reversible. However, the proposal resembles established abstract geometry interfaces and numerical conformance testing, increasing prior-art vulnerability. More importantly, an analytic geometry and voxel approximation may only appear equivalent because the contract places consequential discrepancies inside an ambiguity band. A process partner could test whether that band preserves decision-relevant distinctions, but the current contrastive value is weaker than in the ledger or controller proposals."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":58,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":83,"adopter_partner_path":75,"deployability_complexity":64,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"Synthetic conformance can align result shapes and lifecycle semantics while failing to establish that different transducers measure a scientifically comparable measurand with interchangeable uncertainty.","rationale":"The problem is consequential and the tagged observation model directly prevents invalid, saturated, or inapplicable readings from masquerading as ordinary concentrations. Capability profiles, calibration identity, temporal support, and uncertainty make the intervention specific and testable. Yet the decisive uncertainty is empirical: transducer-specific selectivity, interference, sampling volume, and uncertainty models may defeat a shared capability profile even when simulators pass. That limits strict potential but creates a strong partner lane for an authorized metrology study. Scrutiny should also test resilience against familiar measurement-interface, quality-flag, and calibration-metadata practices."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals use the archetype causally and provide unusually safe simulator-first falsification. The portfolio's shared weakness is prior-art vulnerability around opaque typed interfaces and conformance suites. B offers the strongest strict, deployable software test; A and D merit early scrutiny for high-consequence partner opportunities; C is most exposed to familiar geometry abstractions and tolerance-defined equivalence.","confidence":"HIGH"}