{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C052","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":80,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance could become institutional self-consolation that consumes attention while adding nothing beyond an ordinary stewardship review.","rationale":"Long-duration, cross-functional stewardship loss is consequential, and recurring ritual renewal is unusually well matched to preserving duty meaning across turnover. The synthetic first step is highly bounded and reversible, with explicit authority exclusions and measurable handoff checks. Its key scrutiny question is whether shared meaning and continuity improve beyond what a well-run administrative review can achieve."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":76,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":85,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"Symbolic attention to downstream consequences could encourage outcome-oriented reasoning or merely repackage standard quality meetings and ethics training.","rationale":"Preserving qualifications and corrective memory is highly important, and a laboratory can authorize a low-risk synthetic pilot with concrete quality-action follow-through. However, the causal work may be performed largely by existing technical review, corrective-action, and training practices, leaving the ritual component vulnerable to being decorative. A willing laboratory could still resolve that uncertainty through a bounded comparison."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":81,"operational_specificity":96,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":81,"deployability_complexity":70,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The retirement gesture may falsely imply legal relief or complete downstream correction while copies, derived flags, or lawful retention obligations persist.","rationale":"The proposal targets a consequential and sharply observable gap between current authority and distributed record use. Its retirement-and-provenance distinction gives the archetype substantive causal work, and the matched briefing comparison can test whether enactment improves legal distinctions and exception routing. Cross-system legal complexity and false-closure risk reduce deployability, but the synthetic pilot avoids real-record changes and offers unusually decision-relevant evidence."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":79,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":64,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":77,"deployability_complexity":69,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":75,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"Participants may confuse the symbolic sequence with operational procedure, while a conventional tabletop exercise may provide the same benefits more directly.","rationale":"Interagency boundary and handoff ambiguity is important, and the proposal supplies a safe synthetic test with strong pre/post vignettes and a matched conventional briefing. Embodied handoffs plausibly make cross-role dependency salient, but scene simulations, joint training, and tabletop exercises are exceptionally close functional rivals. Multiagency coordination, rank pressure, and procedural-confusion risks further weaken strict potential despite good partner-testability."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A and C merit first scrutiny because their ritual forms address meaning-laden retirement or stewardship transitions that ordinary technical workflows may leave socially unresolved. B and D remain credible partner studies, but their ritual components face stronger substitution by established-looking quality meetings, training, or tabletop exercises.","confidence":"MODERATE"}