{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C058","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":85,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":68,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":87,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly may add hierarchy-sensitive recognition theater without improving attribution or claim-review decisions beyond an enforced contribution matrix and formal policy.","rationale":"The proposal targets a credible, consequential attribution and review-standing gap and makes witnessing, consent, reconstruction, and renewal causally relevant rather than merely decorative. Its fictitious-case comparison is unusually bounded and decision-relevant, with strong authority limits and rollback. Prior-art vulnerability is substantial because contribution matrices, taxonomy statements, provenance systems, and authorship meetings could absorb most practical value."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":90,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"A structured technical postmortem and boundary-record template may preserve the same knowledge more accurately while avoiding dramatization, disclosure pressure, and distorted incentives around failure.","rationale":"Loss of the reasoning surrounding failed and ambiguous runs is a concrete scientific and operational problem. The ritual mechanisms plausibly address its social marginality, hierarchy, recognition, and collective interpretation, while repository actions preserve practical closure. The counterbalanced comparison measures recall, epistemic labeling, evidence location, false inference, pressure, and added value, giving a partner a clear stop-or-progress decision."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":94,"causal_archetype_fit":69,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":55,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":68,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":76,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may create false safety assurance while adding little beyond a properly enforced custody checklist, responsibility matrix, and briefing.","rationale":"Continuous nanomaterial stewardship is highly consequential, and the proposal is exceptionally careful about separating symbolism from technical controls. However, its decisive outputs—owners, resources, deadlines, escalation conditions, and lifecycle handoffs—closely resemble standard safety and action-tracking practices, making the archetype less causally essential. The mock comparison is strong and safe, so partner potential remains meaningful despite weaker strict potential."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":90,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":79,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"Recurring stakeholder symbolism could legitimize predetermined choices or misrepresent selected representatives as broader consent despite the proposal's safeguards.","rationale":"The proposal addresses a consequential laboratory-to-pilot failure mode and uses the archetype substantively: the outward-to-inward enactment exposes translations between affected-party concerns and nanoscale choices while preserving dissent and standing. Requirements traceability, compensated participation, vetoes, and a counterbalanced tabletop test are concrete. Its main disadvantages are substantial governance burden and a strong rival consisting of an authorized advisory board coupled to requirements traceability."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_B","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually bounded, reversible, and testable; the principal discriminator is whether ritual mechanisms plausibly add a decision-relevant social or epistemic signal beyond strong ordinary governance. B offers the cleanest partner-resolvable uncertainty, D the strongest cross-scale accountability claim, A a strong but hierarchy-sensitive recognition intervention, and C the greatest risk of being absorbed by standard safety controls.","confidence":"HIGH"}