{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__art_aesthetics","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"cand_art_kinetic_sculpture_modal_conservation_02","proposal_index":2,"version":0,"title":"Mode-Bounded Conservation of a Suspended Kinetic Sculpture","problem":"A suspended kinetic sculpture composed of linked plates, cables, joints, and a periodic drive can develop unintended synchronized motion after component aging, retensioning, relocation, or actuator adjustment. Conservators may respond to the most visible symptom—one vibrating plate, noisy joint, or near-contact gap—by tightening or damping that component. Because the sculpture evolves through coupled mechanical modes, the local change can transfer energy into another coordinated motion, suppress an intended gesture, or create a slowly growing oscillation elsewhere.","actors":["Installation artist or authorized artistic representative","Objects conservator","Structural or mechanical engineer","Museum registrar or collection manager","Exhibition technician"],"observable_state":"During controlled operation, tracked points on the sculpture exhibit repeatable combinations of displacement, velocity, phase, and acceleration. The problem is observable when a coordinated pattern persists after an impulse, grows during repeated drive cycles, oscillates near another mode, produces recurring contact or noise, or changes the artist-approved relationship among moving elements even though no single component measurement explains it.","consequence":"Component-wise repair can leave the damaging or aesthetically disruptive motion intact, move it to another part of the sculpture, or remove motion that belongs to the work. Continued operation may then threaten material integrity, clearance margins, acoustic character, or the intended choreography.","affected_objective":"Preserve the artist-authorized motion, timing, spatial relationships, and acoustic character of the sculpture while keeping stresses, contacts, and excursions within conservation and venue safety limits.","intervention":"Temporarily instrument one sculpture with optical markers and reversible motion sensors, record free-decay and low-amplitude driven responses, and use empirical mode-shape testing to recover coordinated motion patterns, frequencies, and damping without assuming a complete mechanical operator. Classify the identified modes within the tested drive regime; build a reduced-order model from the modes needed to reconstruct held-out responses; and sweep reversible candidate controls such as actuator frequency, drive phase, cable tension within approved limits, or removable damping placement. Advance only a control combination predicted to reduce a prohibited mode without materially displacing artist-protected modes. Test that combination first on a duplicated controller preset or reversible fixture, with residual, coupling, and mode-drift checks retained.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Transformation Scope","domain_realization":"The sampled evolution of the sculpture's displacement-and-velocity state during free decay or repeated actuator cycles under a fixed installation geometry and environmental condition."},{"archetype_element":"State-Vector Definition","domain_realization":"Three-dimensional displacement, velocity, and phase measurements at predefined plates, joints, cables, and clearance-critical points, augmented by actuator state."},{"archetype_element":"Invariant Mode Basis","domain_realization":"Empirically observed coordinated motion shapes that approximately retain their spatial pattern while their amplitude and phase evolve."},{"archetype_element":"Modal Gain Spectrum","domain_realization":"Estimated natural frequencies, damping or cycle-to-cycle amplitude multipliers, and oscillatory phase behavior for each measured mode."},{"archetype_element":"Dominant Mode Selection Rule","domain_realization":"Retain a mode if it is repeatable across excitation locations and either contributes materially to held-out response reconstruction, approaches a conservation limit, or carries artist-designated motion."},{"archetype_element":"Stable/Unstable Mode Partition","domain_realization":"Separate sufficiently damped modes from weakly damped, drive-amplified, marginal, or growing modes within the approved operating window."},{"archetype_element":"Modal Intervention Map","domain_realization":"Map bounded changes in drive settings, approved cable tensions, and removable damping locations to predicted changes in prohibited and protected modal coordinates."},{"archetype_element":"Reconstruction Residual Check","domain_realization":"Reconstruct held-out marker trajectories and clearance-critical excursions from retained modes, preserving unexplained temporal or spatial structure as an explicit residual."},{"archetype_element":"Mode Drift Monitor","domain_realization":"Recheck modal frequencies, damping, and shapes after relocation, component replacement, retensioning, seasonal environmental change, or anomalous operation."},{"archetype_element":"Interpretation Scope Contract","domain_realization":"The identified modes describe small motions of this sculpture in its tested configuration; they do not establish global behavior, artistic meaning, or safety under impacts and operating conditions not tested."},{"archetype_element":"Mode-Coupling Register","domain_realization":"Record energy transfer, beating, or shape mixing among closely spaced modes and cross-effects produced by every candidate tension, drive, or damping change."},{"archetype_element":"Local Linearization Window","domain_realization":"Limit inference to the preregistered low-amplitude excitation range, approved drive envelope, fixed supports, and observed temperature and humidity band."},{"archetype_element":"Spectral Gap Threshold","domain_realization":"Treat modes as separately actionable only when resampling and repeated trials show adequate frequency separation or a stable joint subspace for a near-degenerate group."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"mode_shape_testing","role":"Recover the sculpture's actual motion shapes, frequencies, and damping from measured free-decay and driven responses, while attaching the tested excitation and configuration conditions to every result.","counterfactual_removal":"Without empirical mode-shape testing, the intervention would infer coupled behavior from visible symptoms or an unvalidated idealized model rather than the installed artwork's response."},{"mechanism_slug":"modal_stability_analysis","role":"Classify measured modes as damped, weakly damped, marginal, oscillatory, or drive-amplified within the bounded operating regime.","counterfactual_removal":"Without stability classification, a visually prominent but harmless intended mode could be prioritized over a quieter mode whose amplitude accumulates during repeated operation."},{"mechanism_slug":"reduced_order_model","role":"Provide a small runnable surrogate for testing how candidate drive, tension, and removable-damping changes affect protected and prohibited modal coordinates.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the reduced-order model, each candidate would require direct intervention on the artwork, increasing handling and making cross-mode consequences harder to anticipate."},{"mechanism_slug":"modal_sensitivity_sweep","role":"Perturb each feasible control in the surrogate and bounded physical trials, rank its leverage on clearance, stress-proxy, acoustic, and artist-protected motion outcomes, and register cross-mode effects.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the sweep, controls would be chosen from mode amplitude alone rather than their outcome-specific leverage and effects on other modes."},{"mechanism_slug":"residual_reconstruction_test","role":"Determine whether the retained modes reconstruct held-out trajectories, contacts, and free-decay responses within preregistered tolerances and expose structured behavior omitted by the surrogate.","counterfactual_removal":"Without reconstruction testing, a compact model could silently exclude a low-energy motion responsible for contact, noise, or an artistically important gesture."},{"mechanism_slug":"spectral_gap_monitor","role":"Track separation and shape drift among protected and prohibited modes after approved changes and during subsequent condition checks.","counterfactual_removal":"Without gap and drift monitoring, closely spaced modes could exchange identity while an obsolete control map continues to guide operation."},{"mechanism_slug":"spectral_decomposition_report","role":"Give the artist, conservator, engineer, and registrar a shared record of protected modes, prohibited modes, couplings, residuals, operating limits, and interpretive restrictions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the report, provisional engineering labels could be mistaken for artistic judgments or used outside the measured configuration."}],"causal_chain":["The linked sculpture transforms a distributed displacement-and-velocity state during every free-decay interval and drive cycle.","Its visible component motions are mixtures of coordinated mechanical modes rather than independent local behaviors.","Low-amplitude excitation and distributed measurement reveal spatial patterns, frequencies, and damping present in the installed work.","Stability classification distinguishes intended damped motion from weakly damped or drive-amplified patterns that approach conservation constraints.","A residual-qualified reduced-order model preserves the action-relevant modes while keeping omitted behavior visible.","Sensitivity sweeps identify reversible control combinations that reduce a prohibited modal coordinate while minimally disturbing artist-protected coordinates.","A reversible preset or fixture trial tests the predicted modal change and its cross-effects before any treatment is authorized.","Continued use is permitted only inside the tested regime and is suspended when residuals, mode drift, separation, or conservation limits invalidate the model."],"baseline":"The baseline is symptom-led maintenance: inspect the visibly active component, check fasteners and clearances, adjust that component or the actuator, and observe the sculpture during another run. The pilot compares this process with modal diagnosis using the same approved operating envelope, measured clearances, protected-motion criteria, and stop rules.","nearest_rivals":["Component-by-component inspection and tightening, which can remedy a local defect but does not identify distributed motion modes or transferred excitation.","Trial-and-error actuator tuning under visual observation, which is reversible but does not separate protected and prohibited modes or quantify residual behavior.","A full finite-element model built from geometry and material assumptions, which can estimate structural modes but may not capture installed joint slip, cable condition, damping, or boundary effects without empirical validation.","Complete immobilization or withdrawal from display, which removes operational exposure but also removes the kinetic behavior the conservation objective seeks to preserve."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal is distinguished by using empirically measured invariant motion shapes as the unit of conservation diagnosis and reversible control, while requiring protected-mode, residual, coupling, drift, and operating-window checks. It does not assert that this approach outperforms inspection, tuning, full physical modeling, or withdrawal.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The artist or authorized representative decides whether a motion remains artistically acceptable; the objects conservator authorizes contact, tension, and damping treatments; the engineer defines safe excitation and operating limits; the collection manager authorizes operation or withdrawal under institutional policy.","authorized_first_step":"Conduct a nonpublic, non-destructive survey using remote optical tracking and minimally attached reversible sensors, followed only by low-amplitude excitations and existing controller settings inside limits jointly approved by the conservator and engineer.","excluded_actions":["No drilling, cutting, adhesive bonding, irreversible damping, or permanent retensioning during the pilot.","No excitation beyond preregistered displacement, acceleration, stress-proxy, and clearance limits.","No public operation of an experimental controller preset before artistic, conservation, and engineering review.","No suppression of a measured mode solely because it is mechanically dominant if it is artist-designated behavior.","No declaration of structural safety from the local modal model alone.","No transfer of the fitted model or control map to another configuration, venue, or sculpture."],"halt_rollback":"Stop excitation immediately upon unexpected contact, audible material distress, sensor detachment, loss of clearance, departure from the approved motion envelope, or unexplained residual growth. Return the controller to its archived approved preset, remove reversible test fixtures and sensors under conservator supervision, verify the pretest resting geometry, and keep the sculpture inactive if that geometry or condition is not restored."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Repeated excitations fail to recover stable motion shapes or damping estimates; responses depend primarily on intermittent joint friction, impacts, slack cables, or other nonlinear events; or a component-level fault fully explains and resolves the observed motion without cross-component effects.","problem_falsifier":"Distributed measurements show that the concerning plate, joint, or cable moves independently and that bounded local repair changes no other measured motion, clearance, or artist-protected trajectory.","intervention_falsifier":"The retained modes fail preregistered held-out reconstruction criteria, change identity across repeated trials, or predict a reversible control that does not reduce the prohibited motion without unacceptable displacement of protected motion or structured residual growth.","risks":["Sensors or fixtures may alter the mass, damping, or appearance of the sculpture and thereby alter the measured modes.","Insufficient excitation or sensor placement may leave an important mode unobserved.","Closely spaced modes may mix or swap identity across trials.","Joint friction, impacts, cable slack, or large excursions may violate the local linear model.","A mechanically low-energy mode may still carry essential artistic or acoustic significance.","Repeated testing may impose handling or fatigue exposure on fragile components.","Engineering terminology may displace the artist's authority if protected and prohibited modes are not declared before control selection."]},"next_evidence_step":"Run one bounded study on one nonpublic sculpture configuration: place a preregistered set of optical markers and reversible sensors at clearance-critical and artist-designated elements; record baseline operation, free decays from three approved low-amplitude excitation locations, and two existing drive settings; fit modes on part of the data and test reconstruction on withheld responses; compare modal predictions with a component-independent response model; and, only if stability and residual criteria pass, test one removable damping placement or duplicated controller preset. The study may support or reject a larger conservation trial for this sculpture only.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 addressed visual and color distortion during iterative multi-projector calibration by estimating an explicit correction-cycle matrix and changing digital calibration controls. This proposal addresses physical motion, contact, wear, and artist-authorized choreography in a suspended kinetic sculpture. It identifies modes empirically from excitation and free decay, constructs a mechanical reduced-order model, and tests reversible drive, tension, or damping controls. Its actors, state variables, evidence source, intervention medium, causal path, safeguards, and adoption decision are therefore independent of projection proofing; it can be adopted without any element of proposal 1.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Created an independently adoptable second candidate with a materially different problem and causal path.","Maintained transformation-defined modal reasoning, residual visibility, bounded interpretation, and reversible authority controls."],"conceptual_changes":["Applied invariant-mode decomposition to the physical dynamics and conservation of kinetic sculpture rather than iterative visual calibration."],"operational_changes":["Made empirical mode-shape testing, distributed motion sensing, a reduced-order mechanical model, and reversible drive or damping trials the operative workflow."],"evidence_changes":["Specified held-out free-decay reconstruction, comparison with a component-independent model, repeated mode-identification trials, and one bounded reversible control test."],"claim_changes":["Limited the proposal to a work-specific feasibility test and made no novelty, prevalence, demand, effect-size, safety-certification, or superiority claim."]}}