{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C048","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":97,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":93,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":94,"biggest_visible_risk":"The contract may formalize contested unit-identity and eligibility judgments as technical invariants, obscuring substantive sampling errors behind successful conformance.","rationale":"This addresses a consequential and credible failure mode: representation changes can alter eligibility, multiplicity, seeded selection, and weights without authorization. The abstraction is causally essential rather than decorative, with unusually precise laws, observables, authority boundaries, and decision-changing falsifiers. The synthetic dual-backend exercise is safe, bounded, and executable by clearly identified study actors. Its main scrutiny vulnerability is that reproducible sampling, deduplication, frozen frames, and conformance testing may each look familiar, so the surviving contrast must rest on their representation-independent behavioral contract and governance boundary."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":81,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":56,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":71,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":79,"scrutiny_priority":72,"biggest_visible_risk":"A conventional workflow state machine may formalize only a secondary coordination issue while capacity, trust, negotiation, and safety remain the actual causes of failed aid.","rationale":"The proposal supplies a clear authority-scoped state model, idempotent transitions, privacy limits, and a safe tabletop test. However, its technical core resembles standard federated case-management and workflow integration, increasing vulnerability to known-looking practice. Adoption also requires agreement across several capacity-constrained autonomous groups, while the proposal itself acknowledges that the decisive failures may arise outside status translation. A willing federation could still resolve that uncertainty through the proposed bounded study, supporting a stronger partner lane than strict lane."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":94,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":76,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Reducing community authorization to one opaque state-and-scope object may erase legitimate governance distinctions or conceal contested authority while appearing technically conformant.","rationale":"Unauthorized release of sensitive ethnographic material is consequential, and heterogeneous community governance makes representation dependence structurally credible. The intervention tightly separates enforceable permission behavior from protected deliberation, explicitly denies that conformance proves legitimacy, and offers a reversible synthetic test with a named community partner. Its decisive uncertainty—whether authority-recognized distinctions can map without semantic loss—is exactly the kind a willing partner can resolve. Strict potential is somewhat lower because legitimacy, dissent, and ethical sufficiency cannot be secured by the interface itself."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":85,"causal_archetype_fit":95,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"The abstract vocabulary and path rules may merely relocate contested ethnographic interpretation into a formal ontology, creating false confidence in derived relations.","rationale":"The proposal gives the archetype a strong causal role: explicit missingness, coexisting contradictions, provenance, snapshots, and derivation traces directly prevent storage conventions from becoming ethnographic claims. Its relational-versus-graph test is bounded, safe, and capable of falsifying both the mapping and oracle. The problem is important but narrower and generally less immediately consequential than sampling or access authorization. It is also vulnerable to prior art around provenance-aware graph models, ontology versioning, and backend-independent query layers, leaving the contrast dependent on attributed-claim semantics and behavioral substitutability."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals use the archetype substantively and offer unusually safe synthetic first steps. The strongest separation is consequentiality plus what conformance can actually settle: A has the clearest strict opportunity, C has the clearest empirical-partner opportunity, D is technically strong but narrower and more prior-art-vulnerable, and B risks applying a familiar workflow contract to a problem driven mainly by non-interface constraints.","confidence":"HIGH"}