{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C056","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":84,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":69,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"The enactment may add ceremony around controls already achievable through permissions, tabletop exercises, approval design, and accountable workflow governance, leaving little contrastive value.","rationale":"The proposal addresses consequential delegation drift with unusually concrete triggers, actors, closure artifacts, sandbox constraints, and decision-changing falsifiers. Its strongest lane is an authorized enterprise-partner study comparing mental models and simulated controls before and after a capability change. The central research question is whether reenactment, circulation, and witnessing contribute causally beyond a well-run governance review."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":84,"adopter_partner_path":65,"deployability_complexity":58,"authority_safety_reversibility":90,"strict_potential":70,"empirical_partner_potential":72,"scrutiny_priority":71,"biggest_visible_risk":"Meaningful deployment depends on platform, legal, estate, privacy, and interpersonal authorities that a willing rehearsal partner may not control.","rationale":"Recurring stewardship fits the temporal, symbolic, witnessing, and handoff structure well, and the prospective synthetic-account rehearsal is carefully bounded. However, the intervention's practical consequences require authenticated platform capabilities and contested authority over multiple people's data; emotional exposure also constrains testing. It merits scrutiny, but after proposals with cleaner partner authority and more readily verified operational closure."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":77,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Household power asymmetries can turn visible collective consent into coercion or retaliation, especially where dependents, caregivers, or safety-critical monitoring are involved.","rationale":"This proposal connects a clear recurring problem to a spatially embodied, multi-party enactment whose room-by-room structure and circulating turns are causally relevant rather than merely decorative. It specifies conservative disagreement defaults, technical closure, bounded rehearsals, and falsifiers capable of favoring a dashboard or technical control instead. Scrutiny should focus on whether safe standing and enforceable cross-device obligations are feasible in real households."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":88,"causal_archetype_fit":79,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":62,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":95,"deployability_complexity":88,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":75,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":82,"biggest_visible_risk":"The proposal closely resembles a disciplined release checklist, readiness review, or commitment-tracking retrospective, making its symbolic elements vulnerable to being nonessential.","rationale":"The intervention is exceptionally easy to pilot, preserves formal authority, produces verifiable ordinary-system artifacts, and offers a strong two-release mechanism test. The commitment-decay problem is credible and consequential. Its weakness is strict distinctiveness: active reconsideration, owners, resources, deadlines, and release dispositions could plausibly be delivered by improved product governance without the marked threshold, silence, or witnessing."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"C and A offer the best balance of consequential problems, causally relevant recurring enactment, safe bounded tests, and verifiable technical closure. D is the strongest near-term partner pilot but has the greatest standard-practice resemblance; B has a coherent archetype fit but substantially harder authority and deployment dependencies.","confidence":"HIGH"}