{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C059","selector_replication":1,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":86,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":75,"operational_specificity":93,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":89,"biggest_visible_risk":"The retirement observance could confer ceremonial legitimacy on a factional purge or reputationally punish a method's sponsors despite the formal dissent and reversal safeguards.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a credible handoff failure linking private negative knowledge, inherited authorization, and unchanged consortium artifacts. The archetype is causally relevant because explicit relinquishment and witnessed status change address reputational inertia that version-control warnings alone may not. The fictional rehearsal and low-stakes teaching-label pilot are unusually bounded, reversible, and tied to measurable artifact updates, comprehension, pressure, and follow-through. Its main scrutiny question is whether ordinary deprecation governance already provides the same benefits without ceremonial pressure."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":92,"causal_archetype_fit":79,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":73,"operational_specificity":90,"falsifiability_test_quality":89,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":66,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":77,"empirical_partner_potential":86,"scrutiny_priority":81,"biggest_visible_risk":"The assembly may instrumentalize community grief and archival loss to solicit institutional commitments, creating pressure or exposure even when custodians formally control participation and acceptance.","rationale":"Archival loss, repeated custodian burden, and unowned preservation work are consequential, and the proposal carefully separates disclosure authority, emotional acknowledgment, delayed consent, and funded work orders. Its rehearsal and low-sensitivity pilot can test meaningful outcomes. However, the decisive operational functions may be achievable through layered registries, bilateral governance, and preservation funding, while the assembly adds substantial coordination, disclosure, emotional, and inequitable-attention risks."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":91,"causal_archetype_fit":83,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":70,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":93,"adopter_partner_path":94,"deployability_complexity":85,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":84,"empirical_partner_potential":95,"scrutiny_priority":91,"biggest_visible_risk":"Researchers and community delegates may experience supposedly voluntary renewal, refusal, or passing as compulsory because employment, authorship, funding, and partnership relationships remain outside the ceremony's control.","rationale":"The proposal targets a concrete and consequential turnover failure with observable omissions, repeated corrections, unclear standing, and missing publication checkpoints. It offers the strongest partner-ready study: one cleared condition, pre/post comprehension measures, anonymous coercion checks, and verification at the next draft gate. The archetype plausibly improves relational memory and witnessed disagreement, though its distinctiveness is vulnerable because a provenance register, onboarding, advisory review, and publication controls could provide much of the causal effect."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":79,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":94,"adopter_partner_path":93,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":92,"empirical_partner_potential":94,"scrutiny_priority":95,"biggest_visible_risk":"Visible response categories and witnessed tradition-linked positions could essentialize delegates as representatives of whole traditions or turn abstention into an identity test.","rationale":"This proposal presents the clearest fit between problem and archetype: the desired outcome is legitimate, memorable nonclosure rather than convergence, so plural recognition and witnessed stewardship transfer are central rather than merely decorative. Closure produces precise editorial consequences, credentials and decision-right transfers, owners, and review triggers. The synthetic rehearsal and low-stakes contested-entry pilot are reversible and decision-changing, directly comparing successor comprehension and publication consistency against ordinary issue logs and transition memoranda."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually operational and safety-conscious, so scrutiny should concentrate on whether their ritual mechanisms add causal value beyond strong administrative rivals. D offers the strongest strict contrast, C the cleanest empirical-partner test, A a promising but politically riskier retirement mechanism, and B the most consequential loss context but also the greatest emotional, disclosure, and coordination burden.","confidence":"HIGH"}