{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__geoengineering_planetary_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design","domain_slug":"geoengineering_planetary_science","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"aggregate_metric_blindness_to_coupled_geoengineering_response_modes","causal_lever_id":"modal_risk_gating_of_geoengineering_analysis","proposal":{"problem":"Geoengineering assessments organized around global means and named regional variables may miss coupled planetary-response directions that amplify, persist, or reverse under repeated intervention, allowing apparently acceptable aggregate outcomes to coexist with worsening regional climate or ecosystem risks. This is a HYPOTHESIS requiring model and observational testing.","actors_substrate":["Climate and planetary-system modelers","Geoengineering research programs","Public regulators and international governance bodies","Populations and ecosystems exposed to regional effects","Coupled atmospheric, oceanic, cryospheric, and biogeochemical state variables"],"observable_state":"A multivariate time series or model state containing intervention intensity, radiative balance, temperature, circulation, precipitation, ocean, cryosphere, and biogeochemical indicators at a declared spatial and temporal resolution.","consequence":"A control or research decision can appear safe in aggregate while weakly damped, growing, or transiently amplified combinations of regional variables move toward harmful states.","affected_objective":"Detect and constrain safety-relevant coupled responses before considering any physical geoengineering escalation.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Transformation Scope","domain_realization":"A model-derived, locally linear transition or intervention-response operator over the declared planetary state.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"State-Vector Definition","domain_realization":"Units, spatial cells, time step, intervention variables, and planetary indicators are fixed before decomposition.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Invariant Mode Basis","domain_realization":"Eigenmodes of the scoped operator represent coupled response directions within its validity window.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"Modal Gain Spectrum","domain_realization":"Eigenvalues quantify decay, persistence, oscillation, or growth per modeled step.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Dominant Mode Selection Rule","domain_realization":"Retain modes exceeding preregistered consequence, persistence, sensitivity, or reconstruction thresholds.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Stable/Unstable Mode Partition","domain_realization":"Classify modes relative to the model's discrete- or continuous-time stability boundary.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Modal Intervention Map","domain_realization":"Estimate how candidate intervention changes project onto each safety-relevant mode and outcome.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"Reconstruction Residual Check","domain_realization":"Compare retained-mode reconstructions with withheld full-model trajectories and inspect structured errors.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Mode Drift Monitor","domain_realization":"Re-estimate mode directions and ordering across scenarios, model updates, and operating states.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Interpretation Scope Contract","domain_realization":"Record that modes are model-conditional, local, and neither causal mechanisms nor deployment guarantees by themselves.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Mode-Coupling Register","domain_realization":"Log near-degeneracy, non-normality, cross-mode sensitivity, and control spillovers.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"Local Linearization Window","domain_realization":"Specify intervention amplitude, background climate, time horizon, and perturbation range supporting the approximation.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"Spectral Gap Threshold","domain_realization":"Require a preregistered, uncertainty-adjusted separation between retained and discarded subspaces.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Transformation Scope","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Scoped planetary transition or response Jacobian."},{"component":"State-Vector Definition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Declared intervention and planetary indicators."},{"component":"Invariant Mode Basis","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Locally invariant coupled response directions."},{"component":"Modal Gain Spectrum","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Per-step modeled modal gains."},{"component":"Dominant Mode Selection Rule","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Consequence-, sensitivity-, and fidelity-based retention rule."},{"component":"Stable/Unstable Mode Partition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Stable, marginal, oscillatory, and growing classes."},{"component":"Modal Intervention Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Projection of candidate controls into response modes."},{"component":"Reconstruction Residual Check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Held-out full-model reconstruction error and structure."},{"component":"Mode Drift Monitor","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Cross-scenario and update-time subspace tracking."},{"component":"Interpretation Scope Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Model, regime, and causal-interpretation limits."},{"component":"Mode-Coupling Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Non-normality, degeneracy, and spillover log."},{"component":"Local Linearization Window","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Bounded state, forcing, amplitude, and time window."},{"component":"Spectral Gap Threshold","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Uncertainty-adjusted retained-subspace separation gate."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"eigendecomposition_workflow","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Decompose an explicit reduced-state Jacobian; report conditioning and incomplete-basis limitations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without modes and gains, modal stability and intervention targeting cannot occur."},{"slug":"modal_sensitivity_sweep","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Perturb modes and candidate controls inside the local window, measuring safety outcomes and cross-effects.","counterfactual_removal":"The analysis could rank mathematically large modes without showing decision leverage."},{"slug":"modal_stability_analysis","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Classify modeled response modes and bind every verdict to its operating regime.","counterfactual_removal":"Growing or weakly damped hidden directions would not become explicit risk gates."},{"slug":"mode_shape_testing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Deliberately exciting the real planetary system is unsafe and ordinary observations may not identify unexcited modes.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; validation uses withheld simulations and passive observations where available."},{"slug":"network_spectral_centrality_analysis","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Node centrality does not represent dynamical amplification of the selected planetary state.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; it would answer a different problem."},{"slug":"power_iteration_probe","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A dominant-only estimate can conceal consequential secondary modes and becomes unreliable near a small gap.","counterfactual_removal":"No change because the bounded test requires a multi-mode spectrum."},{"slug":"principal_component_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Variance directions are descriptive and need not be intervention-response or stability modes.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; covariance compression is not the proposed causal lever."},{"slug":"reduced_order_model","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Run bounded modal-coordinate scenario and control sweeps without representing it as a planetary twin.","counterfactual_removal":"Testing remains possible but slower, reducing feasible uncertainty and sensitivity coverage."},{"slug":"residual_reconstruction_test","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Test retained modes on withheld full-model trajectories and inspect consequence-weighted residuals.","counterfactual_removal":"Dropped nonlinear or low-amplitude but harmful behavior could remain invisible."},{"slug":"singular_value_decomposition","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use singular directions to diagnose non-normal transient amplification and eigenbasis conditioning, not as invariant modes.","counterfactual_removal":"Eigenvalue stability could falsely reassure when transient gain is large."},{"slug":"spectral_decomposition_report","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Publish assumptions, mode meanings, prohibited interpretations, coupling, uncertainty, and residuals.","counterfactual_removal":"Decision makers could mistake local model modes for globally valid causal facts."},{"slug":"spectral_gap_monitor","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Track uncertainty-adjusted gaps and subspace rotation across scenarios and model revisions.","counterfactual_removal":"A formerly valid reduced basis could continue being used after its separation or identity fails."}],"causal_chain":["Define a bounded planetary state and locally valid intervention-response transformation.","Extract coupled modes, gains, conditioning, and transient-amplification diagnostics.","Identify modes that are persistent, growing, consequence-sensitive, or control-sensitive.","Reject modal reductions that fail held-out reconstruction, gap, drift, or scope gates.","Use surviving modes to constrain simulated intervention choices and monitoring priorities.","Escalate no physical action unless separate governance and safety requirements are satisfied."],"baseline":"Assess scenarios through global averages, individually named regional indicators, and full-model ensemble summaries without an explicit modal risk gate.","nearest_rival":"Robust multi-objective ensemble optimization in original coordinates using worst-case regional constraints, without modal decomposition.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["People in all potentially affected jurisdictions, especially climate-vulnerable communities","Future generations","Terrestrial and marine ecosystems","Researchers and model operators"],"decision_authority":"An independent, internationally accountable scientific and public-governance body; model analysts may only recommend, not authorize physical intervention.","authorized_first_step":"A preregistered, model-only pilot on withheld scenarios comparing modal gating with the baseline and nearest rival for prediction, constraint violations, residuals, and false alarms.","excluded_actions":["Atmospheric, oceanic, or orbital deployment","Open-environment perturbation","Treating model modes as consent or proof of safety","Optimization that omits regional and ecological consequence constraints"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the pilot and retire or re-estimate the basis if residual, drift, conditioning, spectral-gap, or out-of-window limits fail; rollback consists of reverting to full-model ensemble assessment with no physical deployment."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Safety-relevant responses may be dominated by nonlinear thresholds, model disagreement, and state-dependent extremes rather than stable local modes; original-coordinate robust ensembles may predict harms more reliably.","analogy_break":"Planetary dynamics are nonlinear, forced, partially observed, and potentially non-normal. Eigenmodes of one model Jacobian are not necessarily persistent physical entities or independent control channels.","failure_condition":"No uncertainty-stable, consequence-relevant modal subspace survives across held-out scenarios, models, and operating windows.","problem_falsifier":"Aggregate and original-coordinate indicators predict all preregistered safety outcomes as well as richer coupled representations, with no reproducible structured residual or hidden amplifying direction.","intervention_falsifier":"Modal gating fails to improve held-out warning time, prediction error, or constraint detection over the baseline and robust-ensemble rival, or increases false reassurance.","risks":["Model-conditioned modes may be mistaken for planetary truth.","Small gaps or non-normality may make modes unstable or misleading.","A reduced model may omit rare but severe nonlinear transitions.","Technical framing may concentrate authority and obscure distributional harms.","Apparent analytical control may be used rhetorically to justify premature deployment."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"MECHANISM_COMPOSITION","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","evidence_maturity":"HYPOTHESIS"},"revision_change_log":{"revision_kind":"ORIGINAL","prior_problem_id":null,"prior_causal_lever_id":null,"problem_changed":false,"causal_lever_changed":false,"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"repairs_addressed":[]},"confidence":0.76,"generator_notes":"Closed-book candidate. Empirical effectiveness, modal persistence, and threshold values remain untested hypotheses; no novelty claim is made."}