{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C047","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":77,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The abstract record model may encode a contested comparative theory and erase distinctions while still producing technically conforming repositories.","rationale":"The proposal identifies concrete representation-dependent failures involving provenance, absence, category status, sequence, and access controls. The contract archetype is causally central, the copied 20-record pilot is bounded and reversible, and suite passage can affect a repository-substitution decision. Its principal uncertainty—whether the abstraction preserves scholarly meaning—can be examined by an archive partner and authorized reviewers, though conformance cannot establish interpretive adequacy."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":76,"causal_archetype_fit":78,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":57,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":75,"adopter_partner_path":80,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":88,"strict_potential":67,"empirical_partner_potential":78,"scrutiny_priority":70,"biggest_visible_risk":"A shared attestation contract may merely formalize contested assessor judgments without demonstrating that different routes support the same readiness inference.","rationale":"The prerequisite-equivalence problem is credible and the synthetic pilot protects students, but the intervention resembles familiar competency, portfolio, challenge-assessment, and prior-learning approaches. The proposed tests can expose workflow, privacy, and state inconsistencies, yet their decisive academic construct validity still depends heavily on faculty judgment and is not tested against later performance. A seminar partner could resolve bounded feasibility, but the strict contrastive claim appears vulnerable."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":87,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"A technically precise profile may conceal disputed religious authority choices and be mistaken for an official determination.","rationale":"Calendar engines provide an unusually crisp representation-substitution problem: identical scoped inputs can yield auditable differences in dates, ambiguity, boundaries, provenance, and version persistence. The archetype is essential rather than decorative, and the two-year, one-profile comparison between independent resolvers offers strong fixtures, metamorphic laws, stopping conditions, and a real substitution decision. Authority remains with a designated reviewer, making the first study bounded and reversible despite likely prior-art exposure around calendar APIs and versioned rule engines."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":82,"operational_specificity":87,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":67,"deployability_complexity":58,"authority_safety_reversibility":90,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formalizing permission as a queryable state object may distort relational, contextual governance and shift interpretive power toward the institution maintaining the interface.","rationale":"The consequences of lost, broadened, or conflated permission are exceptionally important, and the proposal carefully separates community authority, institutional review, access, and technical administration. Its synthetic opt-in pilot is safe and can falsify representation preservation across two implementations. However, obtaining a willing legitimate partner is indispensable, authority may be contested or non-reducible, and successful technical tests cannot establish that formalization itself is acceptable; this favors the empirical-partner lane over strict deployment."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and A offer the strongest strict scrutiny opportunities because their substitution decisions, observables, and bounded oracles are unusually concrete. D addresses the most consequential problem and has a strong partner-study case, but its core abstraction is ethically and institutionally fragile. B is feasible to pilot but has the weakest contrastive resilience and the greatest gap between contract conformance and the substantive readiness inference.","confidence":"HIGH"}