{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__art_aesthetics","hypothesis_id":"H1","search_queries":["interactive installation safety formal verification model checking artwork","museum digital interactive exhibit safety risk assessment flashing lights","patent interactive display seizure flash detection safety system","model checking interactive multimedia installation safety hazards","interactive exhibit software acceptance testing freeze watchdog museum","museum interactive exhibit design standards safety risk assessment software","photosensitive epilepsy automatic flash analysis tool Harding FPA official","formal methods digital art interactive installation verification"],"sources":[{"source_id":"C1","title":"Verification of Plastic Interactive Systems","publisher":"De Gruyter Brill / i-com","url":"https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2015-0036","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["A published approach already models safety-critical interactive systems as finite-state machines and exhaustively model-checks formal properties.","The approach represents user interactions, checks reachable states, generates counterexamples, and supports abstraction plus deadlock and livelock detection.","Its case study is a nuclear-plant interface modeled manually rather than an executable artwork automatically abstracted for exhibition approval."]},{"source_id":"C2","title":"Safety Model Checking with Complementary Approximations","publisher":"Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design / arXiv","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.04946","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Safety model checking with over- and under-approximated reachable-state sets is established research practice.","The method can prove safety or return a concrete unsafe counterexample for a finite transition system and includes termination and correctness arguments.","Its demonstrated domain is hardware verification, not interactive artworks or museum acceptance."]},{"source_id":"C3","title":"Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.1: Three Flashes or Below Threshold","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","url":"https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/three-flashes-or-below-threshold.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["WCAG supplies formalizable flash-hazard thresholds involving frequency, area, luminance, color, viewing scale, HDR, and looping content.","W3C identifies tool-based analysis as a sufficient technique for checking the general-flash and red-flash thresholds.","The guidance acknowledges model limitations such as actual viewing distance and distinguishes content-caused flashing from display- or renderer-caused flashing."]},{"source_id":"C4","title":"HardingFPA","publisher":"Cambridge Research Systems Ltd / Whitedot Scientific Ltd","url":"https://www.hardingfpa.com/","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","claims_supported":["A commercial product already analyzes flashing and spatial patterns for compliance with ISO, ITU, Ofcom, and other guidelines.","It reports frame-level failures through heat maps and tables and has been used by broadcasters, post-production firms, and regulators since 2001.","The product analyzes rendered media rather than all interaction-generated behaviors of an installation."]},{"source_id":"C5","title":"Method of indexing seizure risk due to flashing lights on video display and system therefor","publisher":"Google Patents / NEC Corporation","url":"https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040155872A1/en","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Patent literature predating the hypothesis describes automated seizure-risk indexing from video signals using temporal and spatial filtering.","The patent discusses warning or alarm generation and reducing false risk indications caused by noise or image contours.","It does not disclose finite-state reachability analysis across an interactive artwork's event space or nonvisual software hazards."]},{"source_id":"C6","title":"Keeping Visitors Safe Around Exhibits","publisher":"Association of Science and Technology Centers","url":"https://www.astc.org/dimensions/keeping-visitors-safe-around-exhibits/","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","claims_supported":["Museum and science-center professional practice already places exhibit inspection and risk assessment before admission to the exhibition floor.","The guidance explicitly requires safe bright lights, eye-safe lasers, and strobes that do not induce epilepsy.","The described workflow emphasizes real-world testing, inspection, case-by-case assessment, and records rather than formal exhaustive behavioral verification."]},{"source_id":"C7","title":"Visitors with epilepsy","publisher":"Questacon — The National Science and Technology Centre","url":"https://www.questacon.edu.au/visiting/accessibility-and-inclusion/epilepsy","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","claims_supported":["A first-party exhibition institution says flashing or changing-light exhibits have been tested for exhibition use.","It separately identifies interaction-dependent flashing, rapidly changing experiences, and residual cautions despite that testing.","This supports the operational relevance of variable interactive behavior and residual uncertainty but does not document model checking."]}],"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Finite-state verification of safety-critical interactive systems","similarity":"It already formalizes user and system interactions, exhaustively checks properties over a finite state space, detects loops, and produces counterexamples—the central technical treatment proposed here.","remaining_difference":"The published case study uses a manually written model for a nuclear-control interface, not a sound abstraction derived from an executable artwork and used at museum acceptance.","source_ids":["C1"]},{"name":"Approximate-reachability safety model checking","similarity":"It already uses over-approximate reachable states to establish safety while complementary under-approximation searches for genuine violations.","remaining_difference":"It is demonstrated on hardware transition systems and does not address artwork event extraction, museum governance, or visitor-specific hazard predicates.","source_ids":["C2"]},{"name":"Automated photosensitive-flash compliance testing","similarity":"Standards-based predicates, automated screening tools, detailed alarms, and longstanding commercial practice already cover the nominated visual hazard.","remaining_difference":"These tools analyze supplied or captured image sequences rather than soundly covering every reachable sequence produced by arbitrary visitor interaction, and they do not cover freezes or other nonvisual hazardous states.","source_ids":["C3","C4","C5"]},{"name":"Museum exhibit safety review and residual-warning practice","similarity":"Pre-opening inspection, explicit strobe safety, risk assessment, documentation, and residual visitor cautions already occupy the nominated workflow boundary.","remaining_difference":"The located museum practice relies on inspection and real-world tests, not a formally justified over-approximation with certified-safe, alarm, and unknown outcomes.","source_ids":["C6","C7"]}],"overlapping_components":["Pre-opening exhibit safety assessment","Formal hazard-property specification","Finite-state interaction modeling","Exhaustive reachability checking","Over-approximate safety reasoning","Counterexample or alarm production","Machine-testable photosensitive-flash thresholds","False-positive management","Residual-risk disclosure","Acceptance decision and recordkeeping"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"No source located in this bounded search disclosed a museum acceptance pipeline that soundly derives an over-approximate event model from an executable interactive artwork, jointly checks flash and nonvisual runtime hazards, and reserves an explicit non-clearance state for inconclusive builds.","claim_falsifier":"A dated publication, patent, procurement specification, product manual, or museum procedure predating this hypothesis would falsify the contrastive claim if it documents that complete executable-artwork-to-sound-abstraction-to-multi-hazard-check-to-abstaining-approval pipeline rather than merely combining playtesting, rendered-video flash analysis, or generic model checking.","problem_support":"MODERATE","recommendation":"DIFFUSION_LANE","world_novelty_boundary":"The core technical mechanism substantially collides with established safety model checking, interactive-system verification, and automated flash compliance testing; the bounded novelty remainder is domain integration and evidence of sound model extraction in the exhibition-approval workflow. The search did not establish a prior museum deployment of that full pipeline, but it was limited to eight ordinary-web queries and seven opened sources and is not a patent-clearance or exhaustive literature result."}