{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C055","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":82,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":75,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The wake could become reputational blame theater, distorting the historical record while appearing to preserve it.","rationale":"The proposal targets a consequential and observable form of institutional path dependence, and the archetype is unusually central to its contrastive claim: formally ending an artifact's social authority while preserving contested memory. The low-stakes pilot has clear authority boundaries, measurable repository and dependency outcomes, strong stopping rules, and a decision-relevant comparison with ordinary supersession. Its principal vulnerability is that version control, notices, and postmortems may solve most of the problem without the elaborate witnessed enactment."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":66,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":59,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":87,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":66,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":70,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may merely ceremonialize a conventional quarterly accountability review whose failures actually arise from budgets, authority, or tracking.","rationale":"The operational problem is credible, the twenty-minute pilot is bounded, and the comparison can reveal whether the observance surfaces missing owners, resources, triggers, or reconsideration. However, renew-revise-release decisions, ledgers, witnesses, and quarterly cadence closely resemble standard portfolio governance with added symbolism. The proposal itself acknowledges that resource and statutory constraints may dominate, weakening the claim that the archetype is causally essential."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":75,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":84,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":73,"empirical_partner_potential":85,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"The vigil could expose vulnerable sources or incentivize sensational signals while disguising persistent staffing and compensation failures as a meaning problem.","rationale":"The erosion of distributed observation networks is important and structurally plausible, and the reciprocal disposition, stewardship renewal, and handoff mechanisms fit the relational failure better than symbolism alone. The compensated, low-sensitivity pilot offers useful falsifiers and strong safeguards. Still, guaranteed feedback, paid roles, coverage matrices, and secure infrastructure are powerful rivals, so scrutiny must determine whether collective enactment adds anything beyond sound contributor operations."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":74,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"Contributors may mistake symbolic custody return for legal or technical control that the lab cannot actually provide across backups and downstream copies.","rationale":"The consent, provenance, interpretation, and reuse problem is highly consequential, with identifiable rights-holders and concrete repository consequences. The pilot allows real permission changes, directly compares written review with the assembly, and can decisively surface provenance gaps, disputed interpretations, or unrecorded obligations. The archetype plausibly contributes relational accountability and witnessed institutional commitment, although dynamic consent, member checking, contracts, and provenance controls create substantial prior-art vulnerability and may prove sufficient without a collective assembly."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"A and D merit first scrutiny for different reasons: A presents the strongest causally essential archetype claim, while D offers the strongest partner-resolvable governance problem and test. C is a credible partner study but faces strong operational rivals. B is safest and easiest to pilot, yet its ritual layer appears least distinguishable from ordinary governance practice.","confidence":"HIGH"}