{"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_spectral_exhibition_routes_03","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Spectral Route Audit for a Multi-Anchor Exhibition","problem":"A thematic exhibition may be designed to support several distinct interpretive routes, yet its entrance, sightlines, partitions, labels, seating, and cross-references jointly transform where visitors move next. Reviewing each work's dwell time or each doorway's traffic separately can miss a persistent transition mode that repeatedly returns visitors to one anchor cluster and makes other works function mainly as satellites. Local attempts to increase attention to an under-visited work can redirect traffic without changing the route structure that produces the concentration.","actors":["Exhibition curator","Exhibition and spatial designer","Participating artists or their authorized representatives","Visitor-research specialist","Accessibility advisor","Invited preview visitors"],"observable_state":"During closed preview sessions, consented and anonymized sequences record transitions among predefined artwork zones, dwell-duration bands, entrances, exits, and optional interpretive stations. The problem is present when the estimated transition operator contains a reproducible near-persistent cluster or circulation mode that conflicts with the curator's declared multi-anchor plan, even though per-work visit counts or average dwell times appear acceptable.","consequence":"The installed spatial and interpretive system can subordinate intended themes or artworks to a dominant route, prevent visitors from encountering planned juxtapositions, and convert a nominally multi-centered exhibition into a de facto hub-and-satellite experience.","affected_objective":"Support the curator-declared set of accessible interpretive routes and planned artwork juxtapositions without requiring equal attention, prescribing a single sequence, or overriding voluntary visitor choice.","intervention":"Before public opening, model movement among artwork zones as a finite transition operator estimated from consented closed-preview sequences. Decompose the operator to identify its stationary attention pattern and slower-decaying route modes; map each mode back to works, thresholds, sightlines, and interpretive links; and test whether a persistent cluster conflicts with the preregistered curatorial route contract. Use a modal sensitivity sweep on reversible design controls—such as bench orientation, an entrance cue, one partition opening, a sightline, or a wall-text cross-reference—to identify a minimal change predicted to weaken the conflicting route mode while preserving accessibility and artist-protected relationships. Trial one approved change in a second preview condition and reject the model if held-out transition prediction, residual structure, mode separation, or qualitative route accounts fail their preregistered checks.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Transformation Scope","domain_realization":"One observed movement step from a visitor's current artwork zone or interpretive station to the next during a fixed exhibition layout and preview condition."},{"archetype_element":"State-Vector Definition","domain_realization":"A probability distribution over artwork zones, dwell-duration bands, entrances, exits, and optional interpretive stations, using only consented anonymized sequence data."},{"archetype_element":"Invariant Mode Basis","domain_realization":"Combinations of zones and transitions whose route pattern approximately retains its direction as visitor movement steps are repeatedly propagated through the estimated operator."},{"archetype_element":"Modal Gain Spectrum","domain_realization":"Eigenvalues indicating the stationary mode and how quickly secondary route patterns decay, persist, alternate, or mix under repeated transitions."},{"archetype_element":"Dominant Mode Selection Rule","domain_realization":"A route mode becomes decision-relevant only if it is stable across resamples, contributes to held-out sequence prediction, persists beyond a preregistered threshold, and conflicts with or protects a declared curatorial route."},{"archetype_element":"Stable/Unstable Mode Partition","domain_realization":"Partition modes into stationary, slowly decaying, rapidly decaying, and alternating sets; an estimated gain outside the valid stochastic boundary is treated as a model or estimation failure rather than a visitor effect."},{"archetype_element":"Modal Intervention Map","domain_realization":"Map reversible changes in sightlines, thresholds, seating, entrance cues, and interpretive cross-references to predicted changes in action-relevant route modes."},{"archetype_element":"Reconstruction Residual Check","domain_realization":"Compare held-out transition sequences and zone occupancies with reconstructions from retained modes, preserving systematic errors associated with accessibility needs, crowding, or unmodeled visitor goals."},{"archetype_element":"Mode Drift Monitor","domain_realization":"Re-estimate route modes after opening-day crowding, artwork relocation, label revision, access-route change, event programming, or repeated prediction failure."},{"archetype_element":"Interpretation Scope Contract","domain_realization":"Modes describe movement structure under the tested preview conditions; they do not measure artistic value, comprehension, preference, intention, or the quality of an individual visitor's experience."},{"archetype_element":"Mode-Coupling Register","domain_realization":"Record when changing one threshold, sightline, or textual link alters several route modes or produces different responses for mobility-access routes."},{"archetype_element":"Local Linearization Window","domain_realization":"Limit sensitivity claims to small reversible changes around the tested layout, occupancy band, opening configuration, and interpretive-text set."},{"archetype_element":"Spectral Gap Threshold","domain_realization":"Interpret individual route modes only when resampling shows adequate separation; otherwise treat near-degenerate modes as a joint subspace and prohibit single-mode design claims."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"network_spectral_centrality_analysis","role":"Treat the exhibition's observed transition network as the transformation and map the dominant stationary vector back to artworks and zones that structurally receive attention through connections to other highly visited zones.","counterfactual_removal":"Without network spectral analysis, the audit would rank works by isolated visits or dwell time and miss importance produced by the whole transition structure."},{"mechanism_slug":"eigendecomposition_workflow","role":"Factor the explicit preview transition matrix to recover the stationary pattern and the complete set of slower and faster route modes with their scalar persistence values.","counterfactual_removal":"Without full decomposition, the intervention could identify the main attention center but not the secondary persistent clusters, alternating routes, or mixing behavior relevant to a multi-anchor plan."},{"mechanism_slug":"modal_stability_analysis","role":"Classify route modes as stationary, slowly decaying, rapidly decaying, or alternating under repeated movement steps and flag invalid estimated gains as model failures.","counterfactual_removal":"Without this classification, a visually prominent transition pattern could be confused with a persistent route structure, or an estimation artifact could be treated as an actionable mode."},{"mechanism_slug":"modal_sensitivity_sweep","role":"Perturb reversible spatial and interpretive controls in the fitted model and preview conditions, rank their leverage on the conflicting mode, and log effects on protected routes and accessibility.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the sweep, the largest mode would identify a pattern but provide no defensible mapping from a feasible design change to route consequences."},{"mechanism_slug":"residual_reconstruction_test","role":"Test whether retained modes reconstruct held-out transitions and reveal structured omissions associated with crowding, visitor goals, access routes, or nonlinear threshold effects.","counterfactual_removal":"Without residual testing, a compact modal account could erase visitor groups or route motivations that the state representation failed to capture."},{"mechanism_slug":"spectral_gap_monitor","role":"Track separation and direction drift among route modes when preview conditions, occupancy, layout, or interpretive materials change.","counterfactual_removal":"Without gap and drift monitoring, near-degenerate route modes could swap identity while designers continue acting on an obsolete interpretation."},{"mechanism_slug":"spectral_decomposition_report","role":"Document the route contract, mode meanings, prohibited interpretations, couplings, residuals, data limitations, and conditions under which the audit must be repeated.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded report, descriptive circulation modes could be presented as judgments about artworks or visitors and reused outside their measured conditions."}],"causal_chain":["Exhibition architecture and interpretation jointly create a transition operator over visitor locations rather than independent attraction scores for individual works.","Repeated movement through that operator can concentrate occupancy into a stationary pattern and sustain slower-decaying route clusters.","Per-work counts and local traffic observations do not reveal which combinations of zones form those persistent directions.","Closed-preview sequences make the bounded transition operator and its uncertainty estimable.","Spectral decomposition exposes stationary and persistent route modes and maps them back to the exhibition's spatial and textual coordinates.","Comparison with a preregistered curatorial route contract distinguishes protected persistence from a conflicting concentration without equating balance with equal attention.","Sensitivity testing identifies one reversible design change that acts on the conflicting mode while checking effects on protected routes and accessibility.","A second preview condition tests the predicted transition change, while residual and drift checks determine whether the modal explanation remains usable.","The curator may adopt the reversible layout or interpretation change only if the prediction, accessibility, artist-approval, and bounded-interpretation conditions pass."],"baseline":"The baseline is a conventional preview review using per-work visit counts, average dwell times, heat maps, staff observation, and qualitative visitor comments, followed by local adjustments to signs, labels, or furniture. The comparison uses the same preview windows and declared curatorial routes but tests whether a transition-mode model predicts held-out movement and the response to one reversible change.","nearest_rivals":["Per-work dwell-time and visit-count ranking, which identifies locally prominent works but not persistent combinations created by repeated transitions.","Spatial heat maps, which show accumulated occupancy but do not distinguish stationary concentration from slower-decaying or alternating circulation modes.","Qualitative walkthroughs by curators and designers, which preserve expert interpretation but may not reveal route structures that emerge across many sequences.","Space-syntax or geometric visibility analysis, which estimates movement affordances from layout but does not directly decompose the observed visitor-transition operator.","Direct signage toward under-visited works, which can alter a local transition while leaving the broader dominant route structure unchanged."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's distinguishing feature is that it treats exhibition circulation as a repeated transition process, diagnoses combinations of zones by their modal persistence, and selects a reversible spatial or interpretive change according to its sensitivity on declared route objectives. It does not assert that the method improves artistic experience or outperforms the listed rivals.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The curator retains authority over the interpretive-route objective; participating artists or authorized representatives retain approval over protected artwork relationships and altered interpretive references; the accessibility advisor can veto changes that impair access; the visitor-research lead controls consent, minimization, and deletion procedures.","authorized_first_step":"Run two nonpublic preview conditions with a small invited, consented group, anonymous zone-transition recording, an unchanged reference condition, and at most one reversible spatial or textual change approved in advance by the curator, affected artists, and accessibility advisor.","excluded_actions":["No biometric identification, facial recognition, demographic inference, or recording of unconsented visitors.","No claim that circulation mode, dwell time, or centrality measures artistic merit, comprehension, or preference.","No hidden obstruction, deceptive signage, forced sequence, or reduction of accessible routes to manipulate movement.","No permanent wall, partition, or interpretive-text change during the pilot.","No optimization for equal visitation unless equality is explicitly part of the curatorial contract.","No reuse of preview-derived modes after material layout, occupancy, programming, or access changes without re-estimation."],"halt_rollback":"Stop data collection for consent failure, privacy breach, unsafe congestion, accessibility obstruction, artist-protected relationship violation, or departure from the approved layout. Restore the reference furniture, partition, cue, or text configuration; delete affected records according to the consent protocol; and withhold the design change if residual or mode-stability criteria fail."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Route modes are unstable across preview resamples, the transition matrix predicts held-out sequences no better than entry proximity and per-work attraction variables, or the supposedly conflicting cluster disappears after accounting for accessibility routes, scheduled introductions, or deliberate curatorial sequencing.","problem_falsifier":"The observed stationary and persistent route patterns already match the declared curatorial route contract, or movement among zones is too sparse, individualized, or nonstationary to support a usable transition-mode interpretation.","intervention_falsifier":"The approved reversible change does not move the targeted route mode in the predicted direction, disrupts a protected route or accessible path, or produces held-out residuals and mode drift beyond preregistered tolerances.","risks":["A small or self-selected preview group may yield unstable transition estimates.","Tracking may make visitors self-conscious or alter their movement.","Zone definitions may impose artificial boundaries on continuous aesthetic experience.","Crowding, guided tours, or timed events may change the operator after public opening.","Persistent circulation may reflect deliberate visitor goals rather than spatial constraint.","Optimizing movement structure may instrumentalize visitors or subordinate contemplation to measurable transitions.","Near-degenerate modes may be mislabeled as distinct interpretive routes.","A layout change may affect comprehension, comfort, or artwork relationships in ways not captured by movement data."]},"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register one closed-preview audit for one exhibition layout: define artwork zones, protected and conflicting curatorial routes, accessibility constraints, transition-estimation rules, spectral-separation criteria, and residual tolerances before observing data. Fit the transition operator on part of the consented sequences, compare held-out prediction with a baseline using entry proximity and per-work visit propensity, and estimate mode stability by resampling. If those checks pass, implement one reversible approved cue, sightline, seating, partition-opening, or cross-reference change and test whether the targeted modal coordinate changes as predicted without violating protected routes. The result can justify only an exhibition-specific follow-up decision.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 concerned coupled visual errors in multi-projector calibration, estimated a local correction-cycle matrix from equipment perturbations, and intervened through digital calibration controls. Proposal 2 concerned mechanical vibration, contact, and conservation of a kinetic sculpture, recovered physical mode shapes through excitation, and intervened through reversible drive, tension, or damping changes. This proposal instead concerns visitor circulation and interpretive-route concentration in a static multi-work exhibition, estimates a probabilistic transition network from consented movement sequences, and intervenes through reversible spatial or textual relationships. It neither calibrates image output nor modifies an artwork's mechanical behavior, and its objective, state, actors, evidence, causal path, authority structure, and adoption decision are independent of both earlier proposals.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Created a third independently adoptable candidate addressing a problem distinct from projection calibration and kinetic-sculpture conservation.","Preserved the archetype's transformation, invariant-direction, scalar-response, sensitivity, residual, drift, and interpretation-boundary structure."],"conceptual_changes":["Applied modal decomposition to an exhibition-level visitor-transition operator and curator-declared interpretive routes."],"operational_changes":["Specified consented closed previews, anonymized transition sequences, a reversible spatial or textual intervention, accessibility veto authority, and privacy rollback."],"evidence_changes":["Added held-out comparison with entry-proximity and per-work-propensity baselines, resampled mode-stability checks, and a second-condition intervention test."],"claim_changes":["Restricted the claim to an exhibition-specific structural audit and withheld novelty, prevalence, demand, effect-size, visitor-benefit, artistic-merit, and superiority claims."]}}