{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C047","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":83,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":86,"biggest_visible_risk":"The contract may merely repackage familiar versioned calendar APIs and provenance practices, leaving little meaningful contrastive claim after prior-art scrutiny.","rationale":"The proposal identifies consequential substitution failures and makes the abstraction causally essential: authority, ambiguity, temporal conventions, provenance, and archived versions are observable behavior while algorithms remain replaceable. Its two-year, one-profile pilot is bounded, reversible, and capable of falsifying both the problem and the proposed surface. The main uncertainty is distinctiveness rather than feasibility."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":61,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"Formalizing permission as a stable queryable state may distort relational, contextual, or deliberately non-legible community governance even when the record implementation conforms.","rationale":"The problem is highly consequential, and the proposal carefully separates community authority from institutional approval, access, and technical administration. Synthetic scenarios, minimum-disclosure tests, and explicit halt conditions offer a strong partner-resolvable study. Strict deployment is less secure because the abstraction itself may transfer interpretive power or fail where permission requires continuing contextual judgment."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":85,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"The abstract evidence model may encode a disputed comparative theory while appearing representation-neutral, allowing conforming repositories to preserve the wrong scholarly distinctions.","rationale":"This is the strongest bounded substitution case: the proposal names concrete representation leaks, defines decision-relevant invariants, and tests an incumbent against an independently structured implementation on a read-only 20-record corpus. Divergences can change a clear pilot decision and can be classified by authorized reviewers. It combines high strict potential with an unusually direct partner study, though prior-art scrutiny may find related archival interoperability and provenance contracts."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":81,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":55,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":69,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":80,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention strongly resembles competency-based prerequisite assessment and prior-learning recognition, making its remaining contrastive contribution especially vulnerable to prior art.","rationale":"The proposal is specific, safe, and testable through synthetic dossiers and parallel assessment routes, and it addresses genuine inconsistency and pathway bias. However, route agreement on synthetic cases does not establish equivalent readiness inference or later performance, while capability definitions and assessor judgments remain difficult to stabilize. Its archetype is useful but less uniquely causal than in repository or calendar substitution."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals use the archetype substantively and provide bounded, reversible pilots. C and A present the cleanest technical substitution claims; B is the strongest high-consequence empirical-partner case but depends on an opt-in authority accepting formalization; D is operationally credible yet most exposed to known-looking competency-assessment practice.","confidence":"HIGH"}