{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C051","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":83,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":74,"deployability_complexity":67,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance could become institutionally managed reconciliation that exposes a suspected laboratory or pressures affected users toward premature trust while technical or material failures remain unresolved.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential gap between technical clearance and restored reporting behavior, and ritual is causally central to its shared acknowledgment, witnessing, and commitment-renewal theory. The pilot is bounded, reversible, and unusually careful about evidence, consent, and authority. Its vulnerability is that restorative incident gatherings are recognizable in form, adoption requires a suitable resolved incident and willing affected parties, and social harm could occur despite safeguards."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":79,"causal_archetype_fit":62,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":58,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":81,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":57,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":67,"biggest_visible_risk":"The lineage failures may primarily reflect inadequate software integration, staffing, protected documentation time, or workflow enforcement, making the monthly observance an ornamental knowledge-management meeting.","rationale":"Sample-lineage loss across turnover is credible and the two-cycle pilot is easy to authorize, observe, and stop. Task ownership and downstream-user checks provide decision-relevant evidence. However, storytelling, recognition, and symbolic commitment appear less causally necessary than structured exit interviews, record controls, repository reviews, and resourcing, leaving a relatively weak contrastive claim."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly's symbolic force could contaminate technical portfolio judgment or turn a sponsor-backed continuation or release narrative into an apparent collective endorsement.","rationale":"Sunk-cost persistence, status attachment, suppressed disconfirmation, and incomplete project closeout form a consequential and structurally credible problem. The proposal sharply separates prior technical authorization from subsequent social enactment, specifies operational obligations for either renewal or release, and offers a practical single-gate partner study with sealed decisions and strong falsifiers. Ritual has a plausible distinct function in releasing loyalty and identity commitments, although stage gates and closeout practices remain serious rivals."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":69,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"The covenant may convert a technical comparability review into a visible conformity test, encouraging superficial harmonization or overbroad equivalence claims despite formally plural responses.","rationale":"Cross-laboratory comparability is highly consequential, the evidence boundary is explicit, and a sealed reference round across three to five laboratories supplies an excellent bounded partner test. Dataset flags and clause-by-clause comparison with sealed analysis make failure observable. Yet most decisive work is already performed by proficiency testing, metadata, uncertainty analysis, and governance; the symbolic layer may be duplicative and could introduce political pressure into a metrological process."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are operationally mature and safety-conscious, but their key separation is whether ritual performs an indispensable social transition or merely decorates technical governance. C and A present the strongest irreducibly social mechanisms; D offers the cleanest technical partner test but weaker archetype necessity; B is easiest to pilot yet most exposed to ordinary workflow and resourcing substitutes.","confidence":"HIGH"}