{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C052","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":80,"deployability_complexity":75,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":81,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may become dignified institutional theater while the owner-and-date case review—the administratively effective component—could work equally well without ritualization.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential long-horizon stewardship gap and makes ritual causally relevant to shared duty, tacit handoff, and institutional memory rather than claiming direct identification effects. Its synthetic first step, explicit authority boundaries, halt conditions, record-based problem falsifier, and measurable handoff test are strong. Scrutiny should focus on whether the symbolic cycle adds durable stewardship continuity beyond an ordinary administrative review and whether the empty-folder frame is legitimate to affected stakeholders."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":65,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":59,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":69,"deployability_complexity":62,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":66,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":76,"biggest_visible_risk":"The ritualized reenactment may be indistinguishable from established interagency tabletop training while also creating dangerous confusion about real scene procedure or authority.","rationale":"Scene-boundary and handoff failures are important, and the matched-briefing comparison is unusually decision-relevant. However, the causal work appears largely achievable through training, simulation, interface documentation, and after-action processes; synchrony and call-and-response add coercion and false-consensus risks. Multiagency authorization also complicates adoption. It remains a credible partner study because synthetic vignettes can test adjacent-role understanding and procedural confusion without touching live scenes."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":75,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":81,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"A compelling retirement gesture could falsely signal legal or technical completion while downstream copies, permissions, derived flags, or lawful retention distinctions remain unresolved.","rationale":"This has the strongest combination of consequential structural problem, observable cross-system failure modes, precise legal boundaries, and a bounded partner test against a conventional reconciliation briefing. The ritual is plausibly useful for making distributed authority retirement and exception ownership collectively legible, though much of the effective mechanism may reduce to reconciliation governance. Its explicit differentiation of retirement, deletion, sealing, restricted use, and preserved provenance makes the uncertainty sharply testable while the synthetic pilot remains reversible."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":79,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":76,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The cycle could sanctify laboratory leadership's preferred candor narrative without measurably improving how qualifications and corrective lessons travel into reports and testimony.","rationale":"The problem is consequential, the trace-to-person frame gives ritual a credible role in maintaining shared meaning, and a single laboratory could authorize a safe pilot more readily than the multi-institutional candidates. Operational closure and retirement safeguards are strong. The proposed next test is weaker than the best candidates because it measures immediate meaning and completion of a synthetic quality action without a matched ordinary meeting or direct test of qualification retention, leaving the decisive added-value claim less resolved."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals carefully bound authority and ritual risk, but their shared vulnerability is that operational assignment, reconciliation, or quality-review components may account for most benefits. C should receive scrutiny first because a partner can test that substitution directly against a conventional briefing while examining a highly consequential cross-system problem; A and D offer stronger ritual-meaning fits, whereas B is most exposed to overlap with routine simulation and training.","confidence":"MODERATE"}