{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C056","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":86,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":78,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":79,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":89,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":83,"biggest_visible_risk":"Household power asymmetries may make refusal unsafe or merely symbolic even when the procedure formally provides private input, advocates, and nonretaliatory exit.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential and readily observable gap between administrator-controlled device settings and the standing of everyone being sensed. The recurring room-by-room enactment is causally relevant because the problem involves distributed knowledge, changing relationships, spatial boundaries, and commitments that must reach real configurations. Its rehearsal and instrumented-household study are bounded and decision-changing. The main weaknesses are substantial cross-device implementation burden, uncertain authority over visitors and dependents, and the possibility that technical controls or a household privacy dashboard could capture much of the benefit."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":69,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":92,"deployability_complexity":87,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":76,"biggest_visible_risk":"The marked renewal may collapse into a familiar release checklist or governance meeting whose symbolic elements add no decision-relevant effect.","rationale":"Commitment decay across releases and staff turnover is credible, and the proposal gives each obligation an owner, resources, deadline, and release disposition. It is unusually easy to pilot with a willing product team while preserving normal authority, and the two-gate comparison can reveal whether it improves continuity. However, the central causal work may be performed by versioned tracking, explicit disposition fields, and formal release governance; the threshold, witnessing, silence, and stewardship framing appear less essential than in the stronger proposals."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":75,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":88,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"The enactment could create unwarranted confidence in human accountability when production permissions, review behavior, or organizational incentives remain misaligned.","rationale":"This proposal targets a high-consequence, directly auditable mismatch among written delegation policy, staff mental models, live permissions, logs, and remedy ownership. Scenario reenactment and explicit transitions between proposal, judgment, execution, and correction make the archetype causally useful rather than merely decorative, while closure ties findings to enforceable controls. The synthetic sandbox, simulated capability change, pre/post role judgments, and verification through mock execution form a strong bounded partner study. Its principal scrutiny question is whether established permission reviews, tabletop exercises, and workflow governance already provide the same function without symbolic enactment."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":81,"operational_specificity":86,"falsifiability_test_quality":82,"adopter_partner_path":59,"deployability_complexity":52,"authority_safety_reversibility":86,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":67,"scrutiny_priority":70,"biggest_visible_risk":"The intervention depends on platform capabilities and contested posthumous authority that participants, facilitators, and prospective pilot partners may not possess.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a credible stewardship gap spanning legacy directives, living data subjects, platform changes, resurfacing behavior, and successor access. Its plural, consent-aware observance fits the emotionally and socially contested nature of digital memory, and the prospective synthetic rehearsal is appropriately cautious. Yet real deployment requires uncommon platform cooperation, authenticated succession, legal-policy alignment, and careful grief safeguards; a sandbox can test comprehension and procedure but not the decisive ability to control actual recommendation and legacy systems. That weakens both near-term deployability and the evidentiary value of the proposed first study."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and A offer the strongest combination of consequential problems, causally relevant collective enactment, technical closure, and bounded falsifiable studies. B is the easiest partner pilot but is especially vulnerable to being reducible to ordinary release governance. D has a comparatively distinctive structural problem but faces the greatest authority, platform-dependency, recruitment, and emotional-safety barriers.","confidence":"HIGH"}