{"schema_version":1,"assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","source_experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__geoengineering_planetary_science","archetype_slug":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design","domain_slug":"geoengineering_planetary_science","title":"Model-Only Modal Risk Gate for Coupled Geoengineering Responses","opportunity_summary":"Test whether consequence-sensitive coupled modes expose persistent, amplifying, or reversing regional risks that global means and original-coordinate assessments miss. The candidate is analytically detailed and safely limited to model-only evaluation, but the underlying problem, comparative benefit, stable modal structure, stakeholder demand, and distinctiveness remain unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"A geoengineering research program could adopt the model-only analysis, while an independent, internationally accountable scientific and public-governance body would authorize any use in intervention decisions; analysts may only recommend.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If aggregate assessments conceal worsening regional climate or ecosystem responses, detecting those responses before escalation could materially reduce severe and distributed harm. The magnitude is potentially high, but occurrence and prevalence are unsupported hypotheses."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies modelers, research programs, regulators, governance bodies, and affected populations, but provides no evidence that any organization currently demands, funds, or would adopt this modal gate."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal isolates a plausible advantage—earlier or more reliable detection of coupled harmful directions—and names baseline and robust-ensemble comparators. No held-out result yet shows better warning time, prediction, or constraint detection without added false reassurance."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The consequence-weighted modal gate is a coherent composition, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED and the packet makes no novelty claim. Distinctiveness therefore cannot be credited beyond structural plausibility."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A model-only pilot can use declared multivariate model states and established computational operations such as decomposition, reconstruction, conditioning, and drift tests. Implementation is complicated by nonlinear thresholds, non-normality, unstable gaps, model disagreement, and unresolved cross-model alignment rules."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Research programs can plausibly authorize a reversible model-only pilot, and analyst versus deployment authority is clearly separated. Sustained decision use depends on an unspecified internationally accountable body and unresolved legitimacy across affected jurisdictions."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate supplies named comparators, held-out testing, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, measurable outcomes, halt criteria, and rollback. Readiness is reduced because residual, drift, conditioning, spectral-gap, false-reassurance, and alignment thresholds are not operationally fixed."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The mechanism is explicitly a pre-escalation safety gate, excludes environmental deployment, retains regional and ecological constraints, and reverts to full-model assessment upon failure. Benefit is limited by the possibility that model-conditioned modes create false reassurance or omit rare nonlinear transitions."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Once implemented, the analytical workflow could in principle be repeated across scenarios and models, but differing state representations, substantial computation, local operating windows, drift, and repeated validation constrain reliable scaling."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Preregister and execute one bounded model-only withheld-scenario comparison of modal gating, aggregate/full-ensemble assessment, and robust original-coordinate optimization, including residual, warning, constraint-detection, and false-alarm evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing model outputs and sufficient multivariate state variables are available without purchasing major new simulation campaigns.","A small specialist team performs method implementation, preregistration, evaluation, and review.","No physical experiment, new observing system, or international governance process is included."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Convert a successful pilot into a documented, reproducible analytical pipeline with consequence-weighted thresholds, cross-model state alignment, validation suites, compute provisioning, audit records, and analyst training.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment means analytical use only, not environmental intervention.","Several model families or scenario sets must be supported.","Existing institutional computing and model-access arrangements cover part of the resource need."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Launch a multi-model analytical risk-gating program with independent scientific review, affected-party governance participation, data and compute coordination, quality assurance, and integration into scenario-assessment workflows.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The launch spans multiple research or governance partners.","International accountability and distributional-risk review require material coordination resources.","No physical deployment authorization or monitoring infrastructure is included."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Maintain models, compute, data access, cross-model harmonization, drift and residual testing, independent review, governance participation, reporting, and periodic re-estimation of modal bases.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The program repeatedly evaluates updated models and intervention scenarios.","Specialist scientific, engineering, governance, and evaluation staff remain involved.","Costs exclude any open-environment geoengineering activity."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate clearly specifies aggregate-metric blindness and a falsifier, but explicitly labels the problem a hypothesis and provides no external evidence that hidden safety-relevant coupled directions occur."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Geoengineering research programs are identified as potential analytical adopters, and an independent internationally accountable scientific and public-governance body is assigned decision authority, with analysts restricted to recommendations."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate claims modal gating can improve held-out warning time, prediction error, or constraint detection over aggregate assessment and robust original-coordinate ensembles without increasing false reassurance."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A preregistered model-only pilot on withheld scenarios is explicitly authorized, with named comparisons, outcomes, falsifiers, halt conditions, and rollback to full-model assessment."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the model-only pilot, environmental perturbation is excluded, physical authority is withheld from analysts, and failed diagnostics trigger retirement or re-estimation with no deployment."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The analytical and governance activities are described, but the sealed candidate supplies no model count, data-access terms, compute demand, staffing plan, partner commitments, or cost evidence sufficient to validate a resource range."}},"blocking_evidence":["No evidence establishes that aggregate or original-coordinate indicators leave reproducible, consequence-relevant structured residuals or hidden amplifying directions.","No held-out comparison shows improved warning time, prediction, or constraint detection without increased false alarms or false reassurance.","No uncertainty-stable modal subspace has been demonstrated across models, scenarios, and operating windows.","Residual, drift, conditioning, spectral-gap, consequence, and false-reassurance thresholds are not operationally preregistered.","Cross-model state alignment and comparability have not been validated.","Prior implementations and novelty are unknown, and no adopter commitment or governance acceptance is demonstrated."],"next_evidence_step":"Preregister a fixed, model-only withheld-scenario study comparing the proposed modal gate with global/individual-indicator assessment and robust multi-objective ensembles in original coordinates. Measure prediction error, warning time, regional and ecological constraint violations, residual structure, and false alarms; falsify progression if no uncertainty-stable consequence-relevant subspace survives or if modal gating fails to improve detection without increasing false reassurance.","research_questions":["Do aggregate and original-coordinate assessments leave reproducible safety-relevant residual structure across held-out scenarios?","Are identified modes stable enough under model, scenario, window, and state-definition variation to support a risk gate?","Does modal gating improve warning time or constraint detection relative to both named comparators without increasing false reassurance?","Which preregistered residual, drift, conditioning, gap, and consequence thresholds reject an unreliable reduction?","Can state representations and modal subspaces be aligned across models without erasing model disagreement or distributional harms?","What prior work already combines climate-model modal analysis, non-normal growth diagnostics, reduced-order modeling, and geoengineering decision gates?","Which research program would adopt a successful analytical result, and what accountable body could legitimately govern its decision use?","What staffing, compute, data-access, review, and coordination resources are required for repeatable multi-model operation?"],"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment cannot establish problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, prior-art distinctiveness, realized impact, or exact cost.","All effectiveness claims remain hypotheses until evaluated on withheld scenarios and across models.","Modes must be treated as model- and operating-window-conditioned diagnostics, not persistent planetary entities or independent control channels.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on unspecified staffing, compute, data, and coordination assumptions.","The recommendation covers analytical research only and does not support physical geoengineering deployment or proof of safety."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No external sources or files were consulted. Prior implementations, prevalence, market size, institutional demand, novelty, realized effectiveness, and exact costs are unmeasured; the assessment credits only the sealed candidate's structural and experimental specificity."}