{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C051","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":80,"causal_archetype_fit":72,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":87,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":71,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":74,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may be a decorative layer over documentation capacity, LIMS controls, exit procedures, and protected repository work time rather than a necessary cause of better lineage.","rationale":"The proposal identifies consequential provenance loss and offers an unusually bounded, reversible pilot with observable task and reconstructability outputs. Its weakest point is causal necessity: biographies, tacit-context transfer, and corrective assignments could plausibly be delivered by an ordinary sample-review meeting or better-resourced repository process."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly could lend social legitimacy to a predetermined or premature route termination and thereby contaminate technical portfolio judgment despite the formal sequencing safeguards.","rationale":"Identity, sunk effort, hierarchy, and stigma create a credible gap that technical stage gates alone may not close, making collective release and recognition causally relevant rather than merely ornamental. The sealed decision boundary, concrete closeout obligations, single-cycle comparison, and rollback provisions make the distinct social claim both testable and safely partnerable."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":77,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"Technical metrology, metadata enforcement, proficiency testing, and dataset flags may fully account for improved comparability, leaving the covenant without a distinguishable causal contribution.","rationale":"The underlying comparability failure is highly consequential, and the sealed blinded round provides an excellent falsifiable partner study with direct checks between evidence, charter clauses, and dataset flags. Scrutiny should focus on whether plural acknowledgment and commitment renewal add anything beyond a well-run harmonization meeting, while consortium coordination and proprietary-method concerns raise deployment complexity."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"A facility could use the observance to manufacture premature reconciliation or institutional closure while technical uncertainty, uncompensated losses, retaliation risk, or reputational harm remains unresolved.","rationale":"The proposal targets a credible social residue that technical clearance cannot itself resolve, and its evidence-versus-rumor boundary, affected-party veto, material action tracking, and thirty-day return make the ritual mechanism unusually substantive. It merits early scrutiny, though incident dependence, emotional exposure, privacy risk, and the possibility of institutional self-exoneration make adoption harder and the first study more delicate than Candidate B's."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually specific, reversible, and testable; the main separator is whether symbolic enactment addresses a genuinely social causal bottleneck or merely embellishes competent technical governance. B and D present the strongest ritual-essential claims, C offers the cleanest technical partner test but a weaker necessity case, and A is easiest to pilot but most vulnerable to ordinary-process substitution.","confidence":"HIGH"}