{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C053","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":82,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly may add elaborate ceremonial process where versioned deprecation, migration ownership, and workflow controls already provide sufficient closure.","rationale":"The proposal isolates a credible gap between technical deprecation and socially accepted retirement, and the ritual mechanisms are causally tied to identity, memory, and obligation transfer rather than merely decorative. It has unusually clear authority separation, reversible first steps, operational consequences, and decision-changing falsifiers. Its strongest vulnerability is that capable catalog governance may already achieve the claimed benefit through ordinary change-management practices."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":81,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":76,"adopter_partner_path":71,"deployability_complexity":61,"authority_safety_reversibility":88,"strict_potential":80,"empirical_partner_potential":73,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"A collective witnessing event could intensify distress or pressure disclosure while its fictional tabletop test cannot establish safety or benefit after an actual loss.","rationale":"Ecological loss, altered baselines, and unowned continuing obligations are consequential, and witnessing, lament, memory, and renewed commitment are structurally central. The proposal carefully bounds authority and acknowledges cultural and emotional hazards. However, real deployment is event-dependent and sensitive, while the proposed comparison mainly tests accounting outputs rather than whether collective witnessing safely improves response to genuine loss."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":69,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":54,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":90,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":66,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"The muster may be an ordinary readiness checklist and responsibility handoff meeting embellished with symbolic cards and a threshold signal.","rationale":"The continuity problem is concrete, measurable, and well matched to monitoring-network partners. The bounded tabletop comparison can directly reveal whether the muster surfaces additional owners, backups, resources, credentials, or tacit knowledge, making this an excellent empirical-partner candidate. Strict potential is limited because conventional responsibility matrices, readiness reviews, and structured handoffs appear capable of producing nearly all material effects without the ritual layer."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":83,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly may become epistemic theater that makes a synthesis feel responsibly bounded without changing claims, figures, metadata, or unresolved interfaces.","rationale":"Boundary mismatch and caveat loss in integrated carbon budgets are important and readily observable. The intervention creates a specific checkpoint linking visible boundaries and dissent to publication changes, and its fictional packet comparison can decisively test incremental value over ordinary reconciliation. The archetype is less indispensable than in Candidate A because a disciplined technical review could mimic much of the sequence, but the natural partner, measurable outputs, and strong rollback design make scrutiny highly worthwhile."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A and D offer the best balance of consequential problems, causally relevant ritual structure, and bounded tests. C is the strongest low-friction partner experiment but is highly vulnerable to being standard operational practice with symbolic additions. B has strong archetype fit and importance, yet its decisive real-world uncertainty is harder to test safely than its tabletop design suggests.","confidence":"HIGH"}