{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C060","selector_replication":3,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":84,"causal_archetype_fit":91,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":76,"operational_specificity":88,"falsifiability_test_quality":87,"adopter_partner_path":78,"deployability_complexity":64,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":82,"empirical_partner_potential":83,"scrutiny_priority":85,"biggest_visible_risk":"The observance could romanticize the former neighborhood or expose identifiable, contested histories while appearing to protect pluralism.","rationale":"The memory-loss and narrative-capture problem is concrete, consequential, and observable, and the recurring witnessed form is causally relevant to plural recognition and stewardship handoff rather than merely decorative. The tabletop and closed pilot are bounded, reversible, and decision-linked, with unusually strong consent and rollback rules. Its main weakness is operational burden: permissions, absent stakeholders, property access, trauma safety, archive governance, and equivalence across participation modes may be difficult for a neighborhood association to sustain. Conventional oral history and plural tours are serious rivals, but the witnessed transfer of actual custody and the governed treatment of contradiction leave a meaningful claim for scrutiny."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":74,"causal_archetype_fit":66,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":52,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":88,"deployability_complexity":84,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":61,"empirical_partner_potential":82,"scrutiny_priority":69,"biggest_visible_risk":"The ritualized assembly may be an elaborate restatement of ordinary negative-case analysis and versioned codebook governance.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a credible analytic failure and offers highly specific artifact changes, authority limits, safety controls, and a clean comparison against a recent negative-case review. A research team could run the synthetic rehearsal and bounded live pilot with little irreversible exposure. However, the archetype appears less causally essential here: provenance, resistant-case review, decision recording, and codebook revision can all be achieved through established-looking methodological workflow, while markers, witnessing, and silence may add little or distort evidentiary weight. It is therefore a strong partner experiment but a weaker strict opportunity."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":87,"causal_archetype_fit":81,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":67,"operational_specificity":89,"falsifiability_test_quality":88,"adopter_partner_path":82,"deployability_complexity":70,"authority_safety_reversibility":92,"strict_potential":74,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":80,"biggest_visible_risk":"Ceremonial renewal could legitimate an extractive research relationship even when material obligations remain unmet or refusal is costly.","rationale":"Dispersed reciprocal obligations and turnover create a serious, structurally credible governance problem, and the proposal ties renewal to owners, resources, deadlines, verification, and escalation. The joint authority model, nonbinding tabletop, limited pilot, and comparison with an ordinary obligations review make the decisive uncertainty partner-testable. The archetype contributes witnessed re-choosing and relationship memory, but a consolidated register, enforceable agreement, and facilitated review may capture much of the benefit. Power asymmetry also makes nominally nonretaliatory participation difficult to guarantee, lowering strict potential while preserving strong empirical-partner value."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":89,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":74,"operational_specificity":94,"falsifiability_test_quality":91,"adopter_partner_path":89,"deployability_complexity":78,"authority_safety_reversibility":95,"strict_potential":86,"empirical_partner_potential":92,"scrutiny_priority":92,"biggest_visible_risk":"Symbolic release could be mistaken for operational discharge, causing residents to lose support while debts, safeguards, data, or transitions remain unresolved.","rationale":"The mismatch among advertised readiness, actual capacity, volunteer consent, custody, and beneficiary reliance is immediate and potentially harmful. The renewal-and-release archetype is causally well matched because the problem includes socially enforced continuity and the inability to end roles legitimately, not only deficient recordkeeping. The proposal sharply separates provisional symbolism from authorized operational decisions, protects volunteers from compelled labor, preserves surviving duties, and begins with a mock tabletop before any live change. Its comparison against sunset clauses, closure checklists, and transition meetings can genuinely defeat the intervention, while a willing network can inspect public notices, rosters, funds, credentials, data, referrals, and duties within thirty days."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals are unusually specific, safe, and falsifiable; the main discriminator is whether ritual form addresses a genuinely symbolic and relational failure beyond ordinary governance. D and A make that case most strongly. C remains attractive for partner testing but faces power-asymmetry and administrative-rival concerns, while B has the cleanest experiment yet the greatest vulnerability to being standard methodological practice with ceremonial additions.","confidence":"HIGH"}