{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C055","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":80,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":74,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":79,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The vigil may add symbolic participation to failures that are actually caused by inadequate staffing, compensation, secure infrastructure, or enforceable feedback and ownership controls.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential and observable failure mode: a nominally distributed scanning perimeter can decay while central analysts misread silence as stability. Reciprocal disposition, voluntary stewardship renewal, and witnessed handoff give the ritual archetype a credible relational role beyond signal processing. The single-pilot design is unusually bounded, safe, and decision-relevant, with clear evidence that would stop repetition. Its main vulnerability is that much of the desired improvement could arise from ordinary service levels, coverage matrices, and contributor support, while the vigil adds exposure, coordination burden, and possible sensationalism."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":81,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":80,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":89,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The wake could become a selectively triggered blame or absolution ceremony controlled by senior scenario sponsors.","rationale":"This is the strongest fit between the archetype and the proposed causal problem. Superseded scenarios can retain informal authority because retirement affects identity, status, shared memory, and legitimacy, not merely repository metadata. The marked discharge, provenance-preserving reenactment, dissent recognition, and operational dependency transfer form a coherent intervention with an executable low-stakes pilot. Version control and postmortems remain serious rivals, but the proposal clearly limits its residual claim to cases where those controls do not end zombie authority. Its falsifiers can change the decision to continue, and its authority boundaries prevent ceremonial retirement from cancelling formal obligations."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":69,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":58,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":77,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may be ceremonial duplication of an ordinary quarterly governance review, with dashboards, owner attestations, and budget controls doing the actual causal work.","rationale":"The transit preparedness problem is consequential, and the twenty-minute pilot is specific, reversible, and well integrated with an existing decision point. The ledger, resource challenge, and explicit renew-revise-release record support a useful partner study. However, these operational components closely resemble standard portfolio governance, while the horizon marking, silence, and witnessed enactment have a less compelling independent causal role. If ownership, resources, authority, or scenario quality explain the lapses, the archetype is decorative. The proposal recognizes this vulnerability and supplies good negative tests, making it partner-worthy but less likely than the others to retain a strong contrastive claim."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":96,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":73,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"A collective return assembly could become consent theater or renewed social pressure when contributors would be better protected by continuous private permission controls and enforceable data governance.","rationale":"The proposal targets a concrete, high-consequence custody and consent problem with observable provenance, permission, correction, and downstream-use failures. Its reciprocal return frame plausibly addresses relational accountability across staff turnover, while real repository changes make the pilot more than expressive ceremony. The test is tightly bounded, compensated, independently reviewable, and capable of surfacing decisive evidence within one cycle. Its strongest vulnerability is that portals, contracts, provenance systems, and private member checking may provide the effective remedy with less exposure and burden. Even so, a willing lab and contributors could directly determine whether witnessed return adds value beyond written review, giving this the highest empirical-partner potential."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually bounded and falsifiable, but their key separation is whether ritual enactment has a causal job that ordinary governance cannot perform. B most clearly targets the socially difficult termination of institutional authority; D offers the strongest partner-resolvable consent and custody problem; A has a credible relational mechanism but substantial operational rivals; C is most vulnerable to collapsing into standard quarterly portfolio control.","confidence":"MODERATE"}