{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C050","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may create visible cross-company harmony without changing retaliation risk or the actual response to a junior contractor's stop-work call.","rationale":"Cross-employer ambiguity at a safety-critical interface is consequential, and reciprocal recognition is a genuinely social mechanism not fully reducible to employer-specific procedures. The rehearsal is bounded, reversible, authority-conscious, and directly compared with a joint briefing. Its main uncertainty—whether enactment adds comprehension and answerability beyond credible procedures and anti-retaliation enforcement—is partner-testable, although operational behavior is not tested initially."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":73,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":58,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":90,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":80,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"A stricter anomaly tracker and ordinary cross-disciplinary handoff may supply the same continuity benefit without ritualized commitment or status confusion.","rationale":"Loss of anomaly meaning across turnover is credible and important, and the proposed rehearsal is unusually safe and measurable. However, most practical closure comes from standard owner, action, dependency, date, and escalation fields; card circulation and spoken renewal may be decorative relative to disciplined records and handoffs. A willing flight-test organization could resolve that uncertainty cheaply with the proposed matched comparison."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":70,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":55,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":81,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":65,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":69,"biggest_visible_risk":"Public ritual treatment of margin transfers may be confused with engineering concurrence or pressure disciplines to suppress legitimate technical dissent.","rationale":"Whole-aircraft margin dependencies are consequential, but dashboards, interface reviews, configuration control, and systems-integration practices are very close functional rivals. The controlled training case and deliberately inconsistent dependency make a strong bounded test, yet the archetype appears less causally essential than disciplined technical facilitation and traceability. Partner access is plausible but requires many specialized disciplines and careful protection against concurrence signaling and shaming."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":81,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may aestheticize residents' distress and provide symbolic acknowledgment that institutions use in place of funded or authorized mitigation.","rationale":"Commitment provenance, acknowledgment, renewal, and plural memory are inherently relational, making the ritual archetype causally central rather than merely decorative. The public ledger creates a concrete operational handoff, and a fictional rehearsal can test comprehension, consent, representation, and authority boundaries. It is highly attractive for partner scrutiny, though multi-party legitimacy, sensory exposure, representational capture, and dependence on absent operational authorities make deployment more complex than Candidate A."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A and D offer the strongest scrutiny targets because their central deficits concern socially legible recognition across institutional boundaries, so the ritual archetype plausibly adds a distinct mechanism. B and C are safer and highly specified, but their decisive functions look more readily reproducible through strengthened trackers, handoffs, dashboards, and conventional facilitated reviews.","confidence":"HIGH"}