{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C058","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":89,"causal_archetype_fit":81,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":66,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":87,"deployability_complexity":89,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":78,"empirical_partner_potential":91,"scrutiny_priority":84,"biggest_visible_risk":"The symbolic observance may add no decision-relevant signal beyond a strengthened custody checklist while creating false assurance or conspicuous participation pressure.","rationale":"The proposal addresses consequential custody and containment gaps with unusually specific closure rules, strong separation from formal safety governance, a reversible fictitious-record first step, and a direct counterbalanced test. Its vulnerability is that nearly all practical value may come from mandatory owner, resource, deadline, and escalation fields rather than the ritual mechanisms."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":85,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":63,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":89,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"A memorable public lineage narrative could harden contested credit accounts under hierarchy while contributing little beyond an early contribution matrix and enforced review rights.","rationale":"Recognition, witnessing, consent, correction, and recurring renewal are causally relevant to the social credit problem, and the synthetic-case comparison is bounded and decision-changing. However, the problem has close administrative rivals, formal credit decisions remain outside the intervention, and the assembly could intensify pressure or false equivalence without improving attribution outcomes."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":90,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":91,"deployability_complexity":91,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":93,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly may romanticize or dramatize failure, stabilizing unsupported interpretations while adding no useful boundary knowledge beyond a structured technical postmortem.","rationale":"This is the strongest causal use of the archetype: marked attention, protected plural interpretation, recognition, and renewal plausibly address the social mechanisms by which negative evidence disappears despite technical storage. The intervention is bounded, reversible, operationally detailed, and tested against its strongest rival using recall, epistemic-labeling, repository-action, and harm measures that can clearly stop deployment."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":96,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":71,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":95,"adopter_partner_path":85,"deployability_complexity":72,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":81,"empirical_partner_potential":96,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"Recurring stakeholder symbolism could legitimize predetermined choices or misrepresent selected representatives as broader community consent without transferring meaningful decision power.","rationale":"The problem is highly consequential, and the outward-to-inward translation mechanism creates a concrete accountability chain from affected-party concerns to requirements, resources, evidence, and review rights. It is an excellent partner-study candidate with explicit compensation, vetoes, dissent preservation, and a synthetic first test, but real deployment requires difficult representation, governance, and sustained stakeholder coordination, and a properly empowered advisory board may subsume the claimed advantage."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_C","portfolio_observation":"All four are unusually testable and safety-conscious, but each is vulnerable to a conventional structured process capturing most practical benefit. C offers the cleanest strict-plus-partner balance and the most causally essential ritual function; D has the greatest consequence and partner upside but substantially heavier representation and governance dependencies. A is a strong bounded safety-adjacent study, while B faces the closest standard-practice rivals and the greatest risk that public recognition hardens hierarchy rather than correcting it.","confidence":"HIGH"}