{"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":"Modal Risk Gating for Coupled Geoengineering Response Analysis","opportunity_summary":"Test whether consequence-weighted modal diagnostics can reveal persistent, amplifying, or control-sensitive coupled planetary responses that global averages, named regional indicators, and original-coordinate robust ensembles fail to detect. The candidate is limited to a preregistered, model-only comparison and does not authorize physical intervention.","adopter_authorizer":"Potential adopters are geoengineering research programs and climate or planetary-system modeling groups. Any use affecting physical intervention would require authorization from an independent, internationally accountable scientific and public-governance body; model analysts may only recommend.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If aggregate assessments conceal coupled regional or ecological deterioration, earlier detection could materially improve research safety and constrain simulated intervention choices. Impact remains conditional because the problem and predictive value are untested hypotheses."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies research programs, regulators, affected populations, and ecosystems, but provides no sealed evidence that prospective adopters currently demand modal gating or would incorporate it into decisions."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposed gate could add warning time or constraint detection by exposing coupled directions and transient amplification, but the nearest rival—robust multi-objective ensembles with worst-case regional constraints—may perform equally well or better."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition of modal diagnostics, consequence constraints, and explicit rejection gates is testable, but prior art is unsearched and no novelty claim is supported."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A bounded model-only pilot is technically conceivable using declared multivariate states and withheld scenarios, but cross-model state alignment, non-normal dynamics, nonlinear thresholds, unstable spectral gaps, and preregistered tolerances remain substantial implementation challenges."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Research groups can authorize analytical pilots, but consequential adoption would involve an independent international scientific and public-governance body whose formation, mandate, and decision process are not established in the candidate."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate supplies named comparators, held-out tests, falsifiers, halt rules, and measurable outcomes, enabling a pilot design. It supplies no empirical results, operational thresholds, cross-model protocol, or evidence of stable consequence-relevant modes."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal adds an analytical rejection layer, prohibits physical perturbation, requires rollback to full-model assessment, and explicitly targets false reassurance. It could still create false confidence if model-conditioned modes are mistaken for planetary truth."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The analytical pattern could be applied across models and scenarios, but scaling depends on compatible state representations, computational access, stable diagnostics, and governance procedures that have not been demonstrated."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and execute one preregistered model-only pilot using existing accessible model outputs, withheld scenarios, the baseline, and the robust original-coordinate rival; includes analysis labor, data preparation, threshold specification, computation, and independent review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Suitable existing model outputs are accessible without commissioning new climate simulations.","The pilot uses a limited number of models, intervention windows, and safety outcomes.","No physical intervention, new observational campaign, or formal international authorization process is included."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Convert a successful pilot into a reusable multi-model analytical workflow with state-alignment procedures, validated diagnostics, audit trails, documentation, and partner onboarding.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment means adoption within research analysis, not authorization or execution of geoengineering.","Several modeling partners and heterogeneous datasets must be integrated.","Independent scientific and distributional-risk review is included."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Launch a governed, multi-institution research-analysis program spanning several model families and scenario sets, with reproducibility checks, consequence review, secure computation, training, and public-governance participation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains model-only and excludes open-environment experiments.","International partner coordination and affected-party engagement are required.","The workflow supplements rather than replaces full-model ensemble assessment."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Maintain multi-model analyses, recompute modes as models and operating windows change, monitor drift and residuals, conduct audits, update data and software, coordinate partners, and support governance review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The program operates across multiple institutions and model updates.","Recurring independent validation and stakeholder participation are retained.","No physical deployment monitoring or field experimentation is included."]}},"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 its possible safety consequence, but supplies no external evidence that hidden coupled directions reproducibly impair existing geoengineering assessments."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Geoengineering research programs and planetary-system modelers can adopt the analytical pilot, while an independent internationally accountable scientific and public-governance body is explicitly designated for any consequential authorization."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate claims modal gating should improve held-out warning time, prediction error, or constraint detection relative to 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 bounded, reversible, comparator-based, and falsified if it produces no stable consequence-relevant subspace or no improvement over the named rivals."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the first evidence step, physical perturbation is excluded, analysts cannot authorize intervention, failure triggers retirement or re-estimation of the basis, and rollback restores full-model ensemble assessment."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate defines a model-only pilot sufficiently well to bound broad resource categories, although exact data, computation, coordination, and cross-model integration needs remain uncertain."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether aggregate and original-coordinate indicators leave reproducible structured residuals or hidden amplifying directions on held-out scenarios.","Whether a consequence-relevant modal subspace remains stable across models, operating windows, uncertainty treatments, and state representations.","Whether modal gating improves warning time, prediction error, or constraint detection over both named comparators without increasing false reassurance.","Operationally justified residual, drift, conditioning, spectral-gap, out-of-window, and false-reassurance thresholds.","A documented prior-art review establishing whether the proposed composition is meaningfully distinct from existing climate-model eigenanalysis, non-normal growth, reduced-order modeling, emergent-constraint, and risk-gating methods.","Evidence that prospective research adopters and relevant governance participants would use the diagnostic in actual analytical decisions."],"next_evidence_step":"Preregister and run a model-only retrospective pilot on a bounded set of existing simulations, fitting any modal basis only on training scenarios and comparing it on withheld scenarios against global or named-indicator assessment and robust original-coordinate ensembles. Measure consequence-weighted prediction error, warning time, constraint violations, residuals, drift, conditioning, and false alarms; falsify advancement if no uncertainty-stable consequence-relevant subspace survives or if modal gating fails to outperform at least one decision-relevant comparator without increasing false reassurance.","research_questions":["Do existing aggregate and original-coordinate assessments exhibit reproducible structured residuals associated with harmful coupled regional or ecological responses?","Which, if any, modal subspaces remain stable under cross-model disagreement, state-window changes, non-normality, and uncertainty in state alignment?","Does modal gating improve held-out warning time or constraint detection without omitting rare nonlinear transitions or increasing false reassurance?","What consequence-weighted thresholds should govern residual, conditioning, gap, drift, and out-of-window rejection?","Can heterogeneous model state representations be aligned without manufacturing apparent modal stability?","Would modeling programs and accountable governance participants use these diagnostics, and what evidence would they require?","What existing methods or implementations constitute the relevant prior art, and does this proposal add a distinct risk-gating contribution?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence and realized safety impact are unsupported in the sealed candidate.","Prior art, novelty, and current implementation prevalence are unknown.","Model access, computational requirements, partner burden, and exact costs are unspecified.","Modal persistence and predictive advantage are hypotheses rather than demonstrated results.","Thresholds are prospective test parameters and must not be treated as established safety boundaries.","Results from local model modes cannot be generalized to planetary truth or authorization for physical intervention.","The nearest rival may capture relevant harms as well as or better than modal decomposition."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is unsearched and unverified in this closed-book assessment. No claim of novelty, distinctiveness in practice, implementation prevalence, or freedom from existing comparable methods is supported."}