{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C058","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":85,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":77,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":88,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly may add disclosure pressure and memorable failure theater without preserving more accurate or useful boundary knowledge than a structured postmortem and repository template.","rationale":"The loss of interpretive context around failed and ambiguous runs is concrete and consequential, and the marked reenactment, protected plural interpretation, recognition, and commitment renewal plausibly address social mechanisms that documentation alone may miss. The fictitious-case, counterbalanced comparison is unusually bounded, safe, decision-relevant, and capable of rejecting the intervention."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":82,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":72,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":92,"adopter_partner_path":83,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":93,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":88,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"Public reconstruction may amplify hierarchy and credit conflict while leaving formal authorship, compensation, and review authority unchanged.","rationale":"Contribution compression and late attribution disputes are credible problems, and collective witnessing is causally relevant rather than merely decorative. However, an enforced contribution matrix plus timely claim-review rights is a strong rival, and the assembly cannot itself resolve the decisions that matter most. Its synthetic omission study is nevertheless safe and sharply falsifiable."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":95,"causal_archetype_fit":87,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":76,"deployability_complexity":68,"authority_safety_reversibility":91,"strict_potential":81,"empirical_partner_potential":90,"scrutiny_priority":88,"biggest_visible_risk":"The covenant could become tokenistic evidence of engagement, with selected representatives and symbolic closure legitimizing decisions they do not control.","rationale":"The downstream consequences are highly important, and recurring affected-party witnessing could help keep commitments active across technical gates. The proposal is specific, preserves dissent, and has a strong tabletop test, but it faces demanding representation, compensation, and governance requirements. A properly authorized advisory board with requirements traceability is also a formidable rival."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":69,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":59,"operational_specificity":92,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":91,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":72,"empirical_partner_potential":84,"scrutiny_priority":78,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance may create false safety assurance while adding no ownership or memory signal beyond a strengthened custody checklist and briefing.","rationale":"Custody and disposal gaps can have serious consequences, and this is the simplest, safest, and most deployable proposal. Yet its practical outputs closely resemble ordinary action tracking, transfer checklists, and safety briefings, making the ritual archetype less causally essential. The comparison test is strong, but the surviving contrastive claim appears narrower than in the other candidates."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B","CANDIDATE_D"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_A","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually bounded, reversible, and testable against explicit ordinary-process rivals. The main portfolio discriminator is whether ritualized witnessing and renewal contribute a decision-relevant signal beyond competent documentation or governance; A offers the cleanest low-risk test of that question, C offers the highest-consequence partner opportunity, B is constrained by formal credit authority, and D is most vulnerable to collapsing into a standard safety handoff.","confidence":"HIGH"}