{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C053","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":80,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":80,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":64,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":83,"empirical_partner_potential":78,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"The emotionally and culturally sensitive assembly may cause exposure or distress while its fictional tabletop cannot establish whether collective witnessing improves real post-disturbance decisions.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a consequential gap between technical loss records, affected relationships, and continuing obligations, and the witnessing archetype is central rather than ornamental. Evidence boundaries, consent options, ordinary decision authority, and rollback are unusually explicit. Its contrastive claim is credible but operationally demanding across scientific, land, community, privacy, and emotional-safety authorities, and the first study tests information yield more convincingly than real-world benefit or harm."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":66,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":53,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":93,"deployability_complexity":88,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":76,"biggest_visible_risk":"The muster may be a ceremonial wrapper around a responsibility matrix, readiness review, and structured handoff process that could deliver the same operational result more directly.","rationale":"Ownership gaps and tacit-knowledge loss are concrete, important, and readily measurable, and the fictional-record comparison offers a low-risk partner study with decision-relevant stopping rules. However, the central causal work is performed by naming owners, backups, resources, credentials, and handoff records. The threshold, cards, and witnessing may improve attention or recall, but the proposal has the weakest visible case that the archetype is essential."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Clear deprecation controls, provenance records, workflow blocks, and funded migration governance may eliminate the claimed social ambiguity, leaving the assembly as identity-sensitive theater.","rationale":"Retirement is unusually well matched to the archetype: the proposal separates technical validity decisions from a collectively interpretable ending, preserves reproducibility, and transfers residual duties without declaring prior work worthless. The intervention has a precise trigger, clear authorities, reversible first steps, observable operational closure, and tests that can reveal dependencies, understanding gains, or coercive identity effects. Its remaining claim is narrow enough to survive scrutiny if ordinary catalog controls prove insufficient."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":77,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly may lend persuasive coherence to the synthesis while duplicating a well-designed boundary checklist, reconciliation meeting, and editorial control process.","rationale":"The underlying synthesis problem is highly consequential and expressed through observable mismatches, residuals, omissions, and inconsistent headline interpretations. The fictional packet comparison is exceptionally bounded and can directly test incremental issue discovery, disclosure ownership, authority confusion, and false assent. The proposal is safe and partner-ready, but its archetypal mechanisms appear less causally necessary than the standardized declarations, boundary ledger, and publication controls doing the substantive work."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and A offer the strongest archetype-essential strict claims, while D and B offer easier partner studies. C best balances both lanes; D is the strongest empirical-partner candidate; A has greater distinctive upside but harder-to-resolve safety and field-validity uncertainty; B is most vulnerable to reduction into standard operational practice.","confidence":"HIGH"}