{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C051","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":79,"causal_archetype_fit":70,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":87,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":65,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may merely ceremonialize functions achievable through repository review, exit procedures, protected documentation time, and assigned corrective tasks.","rationale":"Sample-lineage loss is concrete and consequential, and the two-cycle pilot is unusually bounded, safe, and decision-relevant. However, the archetype appears only moderately essential: the main outputs are missing-context discovery and task assignment, which an ordinary facilitated repository review could plausibly deliver. Scrutiny should focus on whether symbolic enactment transfers tacit history beyond the well-specified technical rivals."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":78,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"The covenant could convert an evidence-bounded technical harmonization process into a visible conformity test among laboratories.","rationale":"Unsupported cross-laboratory comparability is highly consequential, and the proposal sharply separates sealed technical evidence from symbolic response. The pilot supplies decisive checks against the sealed analysis and downstream dataset flags. Its distinctive claim remains vulnerable because proficiency testing, harmonization meetings, and enforced metadata could generate similar outputs, while multi-institution coordination raises adoption complexity."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":65,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":88,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":81,"biggest_visible_risk":"A public repair observance may expose or implicitly blame a suspected operator and manufacture premature reconciliation despite formal consent protections.","rationale":"The gap between technical clearance and restored reporting behavior is important, and acknowledgment, witnessing, and later renewal are causally closer to the social problem than in most candidates. The two-part study could resolve whether conduct and obligations improve. Yet incident sensitivity, supervisory power, privacy, and emotional exposure make implementation fragile, and the form is textually vulnerable to overlap with facilitated no-blame review or restorative mediation."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"The release enactment could lend social finality to a portfolio decision and thereby encourage premature abandonment or conceal power-driven cuts.","rationale":"Identity, sponsorship, and sunk-cost attachment plausibly obstruct evidence-based stopping and leave real closeout obligations stranded. The archetype is unusually integral because marking release, recognizing disconfirmation, and withdrawing organizational loyalty directly target that mechanism. It attaches cleanly to an existing gate, preserves decision authority, supports rollback, and offers observable contrasts against ordinary stage gates and closeout checklists."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are operationally mature and unusually explicit about authority boundaries, opt-out rights, technical separation, and falsifiers. The main differentiator is whether ritual form addresses the causal bottleneck rather than decorating an ordinary review: D has the clearest bounded organizational mechanism, B and C merit scrutiny through strong partner tests despite coordination or harm burdens, and A has the most readily substitutable ritual layer.","confidence":"HIGH"}