{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C056","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":78,"causal_archetype_fit":73,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":77,"falsifiability_test_quality":72,"adopter_partner_path":51,"deployability_complexity":43,"authority_safety_reversibility":86,"strict_potential":62,"empirical_partner_potential":59,"scrutiny_priority":61,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention depends on coordinating contested survivor standing, legal authority, and platform capabilities that may not support the promised pauses, audits, handoffs, or authenticated closure actions.","rationale":"The proposal identifies credible failures of static legacy settings and makes recurrence, witnessing, and stewardship renewal causally relevant rather than merely commemorative. Its rehearsal is unusually cautious and falsifiable, but the production intervention spans grief, privacy, succession, narrative conflict, and platform behavior, leaving no clear single adopter able to implement the complete design."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":83,"causal_archetype_fit":66,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":54,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":86,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":69,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":79,"biggest_visible_risk":"The marked observance may add little beyond a well-designed release checklist, decision log, and accountable gate, making the archetype decorative rather than causally essential.","rationale":"Commitment decay across releases and turnover is concrete, consequential, and readily testable with ordinary product artifacts. The two-gate pilot has a clear volunteer partner, preserves existing authority, and can change a keep-or-retire decision. Its main vulnerability is that most practical value may come from reconstructing commitments and assigning owners, resources, and dispositions rather than from silence, witnessing, or symbolic marking."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":83,"falsifiability_test_quality":81,"adopter_partner_path":70,"deployability_complexity":61,"authority_safety_reversibility":78,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"Household dependency and retaliation can make visible consent choices illusory even when pass, private-input, and facilitator safeguards are formally available.","rationale":"Stale multi-person consent for ambient sensing is a credible problem that individual dashboards and purchaser-centered controls do not fully address. The room-by-room walk, sensing pause, distributed turns, unresolved-conflict rule, and verified configuration closure form a strong causal mapping. A test environment offers meaningful falsification, but real deployment faces fragmented device control, hidden data flows, safety exceptions, and household power that a voluntary ritual may not overcome."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":79,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":85,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"The enactment could create persuasive confidence in human accountability while actual permissions, approval behavior, or organizational remedy authority remain unchanged.","rationale":"Divergence among policy, mental models, permissions, and nominal human review is consequential and directly observable. Reenacting proposal-to-action transitions makes the archetype causally useful by exposing incompatible interpretations, while closure requires verifiable gates, logs, owners, and remedies. The sandboxed before-and-after capability-change study is bounded, reversible, partner-friendly, and capable of showing that clearer policy or technical controls alone are sufficient."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_A"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"D offers the strongest balance of consequential problem, archetype-essential mechanism, technical closure, and decisive partner study. C has the next-strongest strict contrast but harder real-world authority conditions. B is the clearest empirical-partner opportunity yet is especially vulnerable to reduction into standard release governance. A is thoughtful and safe but depends on the widest and least unified implementation ecosystem.","confidence":"HIGH"}