{"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_modal_acquisition_deliberation_04","proposal_index":4,"version":0,"title":"Modal Checkpoint for Art-Acquisition Deliberation","problem":"An art-acquisition committee may privately score works against several declared criteria and then revise those scores through successive rounds of discussion. Monitoring only each criterion's average can miss a coupled deliberation direction: for example, institutional fit, explanatory clarity, and familiarity may rise together while formal experimentation, ambiguity, and member disagreement are damped. If that combination repeatedly amplifies, the committee can converge through a structural update pattern that is not visible in any single score and may not match its adopted acquisition rubric.","actors":["Art-acquisition committee members","Chief curator or committee chair","Collection manager","Participating subject-matter curators","Governance or ethics observer","Artists whose submitted work is under consideration"],"observable_state":"For each authorized candidate work, members privately record criterion scores and short evidence statements before discussion and after predefined deliberation rounds. A state vector contains criterion-level committee means, within-committee dispersion, and declared confidence. The problem is observable when repeatable combinations of these quantities persist, grow, reverse, or oscillate across rounds, while ordinary criterion summaries suggest only isolated score changes.","consequence":"A committee may mistake structurally induced convergence for independent agreement, suppress a relevant minority interpretation, oscillate between incompatible evaluation frames, or produce a decision whose stated rationale is poorly traceable to its preregistered criteria.","affected_objective":"Reach an acquisition decision that remains under authorized human judgment while preserving traceability between submitted evidence, declared evaluation criteria, score revisions, unresolved disagreement, and the committee's final rationale.","intervention":"In a nonbinding calibration exercise, represent one deliberation round as a local transformation from the committee's current criterion-mean, dispersion, and confidence state to its next state. Estimate an explicit update matrix across several practice cases and standardized discussion rounds; decompose it into invariant deliberation modes and scalar gains; and classify modes as decaying, persistent, growing, or alternating. Conduct a bounded sensitivity sweep of procedural controls such as independent written rescoring, separating observation from inference, rotating the order of criterion discussion, or requiring an evidence statement before a score revision. Preauthorize a modal checkpoint for later use: if a reproducible mode outside the committee's declared deliberation contract crosses its threshold, the chair pauses discussion, applies the approved procedural control, and obtains another private rescore. The decomposition informs process review only and never selects or ranks artworks.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Transformation Scope","domain_realization":"The bounded update from one private scoring state to the next after a standardized round of committee discussion for the same candidate work."},{"archetype_element":"State-Vector Definition","domain_realization":"Standardized criterion-level means, member-to-member dispersion, and confidence values, with score changes linked to short evidence statements but no demographic member attributes."},{"archetype_element":"Invariant Mode Basis","domain_realization":"Combinations of criteria, disagreement, and confidence whose direction is approximately preserved as discussion updates the committee state."},{"archetype_element":"Modal Gain Spectrum","domain_realization":"A scalar for each mode indicating whether the associated deliberation pattern shrinks, persists, grows, reverses, or alternates across rounds."},{"archetype_element":"Dominant Mode Selection Rule","domain_realization":"A mode is process-relevant only if it is reproducible across held-out practice cases, contributes to transition prediction, and either crosses a preregistered persistence threshold or affects traceability and protected disagreement outcomes."},{"archetype_element":"Stable/Unstable Mode Partition","domain_realization":"Partition modes into damped, persistent, growing, and alternating sets within the tested committee, rubric, facilitation format, and round structure."},{"archetype_element":"Modal Intervention Map","domain_realization":"Map bounded procedural controls—private rescoring, evidence-first revision, criterion-order rotation, and observation-inference separation—to their predicted effects on action-relevant deliberation modes."},{"archetype_element":"Reconstruction Residual Check","domain_realization":"Reconstruct held-out round-to-round score states from retained modes and preserve candidate-specific or member-specific structured residuals that the modal account does not explain."},{"archetype_element":"Mode Drift Monitor","domain_realization":"Re-estimate or retire modes after committee membership, rubric, chair, facilitation protocol, candidate category, or meeting format changes."},{"archetype_element":"Interpretation Scope Contract","domain_realization":"Modes describe aggregate score-update dynamics under the tested protocol; they do not measure artistic quality, member competence, prejudice, sincerity, or correctness of convergence."},{"archetype_element":"Mode-Coupling Register","domain_realization":"Record when a procedural control changes several modes at once, such as preserving disagreement while also shifting confidence or criterion emphasis."},{"archetype_element":"Local Linearization Window","domain_realization":"Limit inference to the tested rubric, committee composition, number and ordering of rounds, score scale, and bounded procedural changes."},{"archetype_element":"Spectral Gap Threshold","domain_realization":"Name a deliberation mode separately only when resampling shows adequate separation and directional stability; otherwise report a coupled subspace without assigning a single interpretation."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"eigendecomposition_workflow","role":"Factor the estimated square deliberation-update matrix into a complete set of candidate invariant score-update directions and their round-to-round gains.","counterfactual_removal":"Without decomposition of the update operator, the review would observe criterion correlations but could not distinguish transformation-preserved deliberation directions or their persistence."},{"mechanism_slug":"modal_stability_analysis","role":"Classify each deliberation mode as damped, persistent, growing, or alternating within the nonbinding calibration regime.","counterfactual_removal":"Without stability classification, a large initial disagreement could be confused with a pattern that amplifies through discussion, while a visible pattern already decaying could receive unnecessary intervention."},{"mechanism_slug":"modal_sensitivity_sweep","role":"Apply one bounded procedural variation at a time in calibration cases and measure its effects on traceability, protected disagreement, confidence, and other modes.","counterfactual_removal":"Without sensitivity testing, the committee could detect an unwanted mode but lack evidence connecting any feasible procedural response to that mode or its cross-effects."},{"mechanism_slug":"residual_reconstruction_test","role":"Test retained modes against withheld practice-case transitions and inspect structured residuals before permitting a modal checkpoint.","counterfactual_removal":"Without residual reconstruction, candidate-specific reasoning or nonlinear social responses could be hidden by a compact but misleading modal summary."},{"mechanism_slug":"spectral_gap_monitor","role":"Track whether action-relevant modes remain separated and directionally stable across later calibration sessions and governance changes.","counterfactual_removal":"Without gap and drift monitoring, near-degenerate modes could exchange identity while an obsolete procedural trigger remains active."},{"mechanism_slug":"spectral_decomposition_report","role":"Provide the committee with a bounded process report stating mode definitions, gains, uncertainty, residuals, couplings, approved responses, and prohibited interpretations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the report, aggregate mathematical patterns could be misrepresented as findings about individual members, artworks, or aesthetic merit."}],"causal_chain":["Successive discussion rounds transform a coupled state of criterion means, disagreement, and confidence rather than changing each score independently.","Certain combinations of criterion emphasis and disagreement may be preserved, damped, amplified, or reversed by the committee's update process.","Ordinary averages and final-score comparisons do not identify those invariant directions or distinguish initial magnitude from repeated-round gain.","A standardized nonbinding calibration exercise makes a local deliberation-update operator estimable without affecting acquisition outcomes.","Decomposition and stability analysis expose reproducible modes and determine which process patterns persist or grow under repeated discussion.","Sensitivity trials connect bounded facilitation procedures to changes in those modes while revealing effects on confidence and protected disagreement.","Held-out reconstruction and spectral-separation checks determine whether the modal account is fit to support a procedural checkpoint.","When an authorized threshold is crossed, the chair applies a preapproved process safeguard and collects a new private score state rather than changing an artwork's rank automatically.","The committee retains full decision authority and records whether subsequent revisions have evidence-linked reasons that satisfy its deliberation contract."],"baseline":"The baseline is private initial scoring followed by open discussion, informal chair facilitation, revised scores, and review of final criterion averages or inter-rater agreement. The calibration comparison holds the rubric and practice cases fixed while testing whether the modal model predicts withheld score updates and whether one bounded procedural control acts on a preregistered process mode.","nearest_rivals":["Independent scoring followed by arithmetic aggregation, which limits interpersonal updating but does not diagnose how legitimate deliberation changes coupled criteria.","Inter-rater reliability statistics, which summarize agreement at a round but do not identify the dynamic directions through which agreement grows, decays, or alternates.","Skilled chair facilitation and speaking-time rules, which can improve participation but do not map interventions to criterion-and-disagreement modes.","Written rationales and decision audits, which improve traceability after deliberation but may not provide an early warning about an amplifying update pattern.","Criterion-by-criterion score-change reports, which retain named dimensions but can miss action-relevant combinations spanning several criteria and dispersion measures."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's distinguishing feature is a process checkpoint triggered by reproducible invariant directions of the committee's round-to-round score transformation, with procedural responses selected through modal sensitivity and constrained by residual, drift, and interpretation checks. It does not claim to identify better artworks or produce better acquisition decisions than rival procedures.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The acquisition committee retains exclusive authority over artwork evaluation and selection under its governing rules. The chair may invoke only preapproved procedural checkpoints; a governance observer may halt misuse of data or interpretation but may not alter scores or rankings.","authorized_first_step":"Run one nonbinding calibration session using practice cases that are not under live acquisition consideration, private coded score sheets, a fixed rubric, standardized discussion rounds, and one preapproved reversible procedural variation.","excluded_actions":["No automated recommendation, ranking, rejection, or acquisition decision.","No use of demographic, psychological, or inferred identity attributes in the state vector.","No attribution of an aggregate mode to a named member without that member's explicit consent and separate evidence.","No alteration of artist submissions or solicitation materials during the study.","No suppression of disagreement merely because it is persistent or reduces consensus.","No live procedural trigger until held-out, residual, spectral-separation, governance, and committee-approval conditions pass.","No reuse after material changes to membership, rubric, facilitation, or candidate category without re-estimation."],"halt_rollback":"Stop the exercise if confidentiality is breached, members feel coerced, scores become attributable beyond the agreed protocol, discussion concerns a live decision, or residual and mode-stability thresholds fail. Discard the procedural trigger, return to the committee's approved baseline rules, quarantine or delete coded data under the consent plan, and document that the modal account is nonoperative."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Round-to-round changes are explained by candidate-specific evidence and individual written reasons, while the fitted modes rotate across cases, fail held-out prediction, lack spectral separation, or add no usable information beyond criterion-level score changes and dispersion.","problem_falsifier":"Private scores and stated reasons show no repeatable coupled update patterns across standardized rounds, or observed convergence and disagreement already satisfy the committee's declared process contract without an untraceable persistent mode.","intervention_falsifier":"A preapproved procedural control does not change the targeted mode as predicted, reduces evidence traceability, suppresses protected disagreement, or produces residual growth and mode drift beyond preregistered tolerances.","risks":["Too few independent cases or rounds may make the transition matrix underdetermined.","Practice-case behavior may not transfer to live deliberation.","Score scales may not support the linear interpretation assumed by the local model.","Legitimate evidence-driven convergence may be mislabeled as procedural amplification.","Members may game scores or rationales if they know a checkpoint rule.","Measurement may chill candid discussion or privilege what can be numerically represented.","Near-degenerate modes may receive unstable narrative labels.","Confidential score records could expose sensitive committee dynamics.","A mathematical process report may acquire unwarranted authority over aesthetic judgment."]},"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register one nonbinding calibration session for one committee using a fixed rubric, a bounded set of authorized practice cases, an initial private score, a standardized discussion round, a private rescore, one reversible procedural variation, and a final private rescore. Fit the update operator on a subset of case-round transitions; compare held-out prediction with independent criterion-wise updates and simple mean-reversion baselines; resample modes to assess directional stability and separation; inspect evidence-statement residuals; and test whether the procedural variation moves only the preregistered process outcomes. The evidence can support only a decision about a further nonbinding calibration, not live artwork selection.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 addressed digital image-output errors in multi-projector calibration and intervened through equipment settings. Proposal 2 addressed physical vibration and conservation of a kinetic sculpture and intervened through drive, tension, or removable damping controls. Proposal 3 addressed visitor circulation through an exhibition and intervened through spatial or interpretive links. This proposal addresses the social-cognitive dynamics of an acquisition committee's sequential aesthetic deliberation and intervenes through reversible governance procedures while prohibiting automated artwork ranking. Its transformation is a round-to-round criterion, disagreement, and confidence update; its evidence is private nonbinding score revision; and its adoption decision concerns committee process. It therefore does not calibrate display output, modify an artwork, or redirect exhibition visitors, and is independently adoptable from all three earlier proposals.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Created a fourth independently adoptable candidate with a problem, intervention, and causal path distinct from all earlier proposals.","Maintained transformation-defined modes, scalar gains, sensitivity mapping, residual visibility, drift controls, bounded interpretation, and human authority."],"conceptual_changes":["Applied invariant-mode decomposition to sequential art-acquisition deliberation rather than visual, mechanical, or visitor-transition systems."],"operational_changes":["Specified a nonbinding calibration exercise, coded private scoring rounds, a reversible procedural checkpoint, confidentiality controls, and a prohibition on automated selection."],"evidence_changes":["Added held-out comparison with criterion-wise and mean-reversion baselines, resampled mode-separation checks, evidence-statement residual review, and a bounded procedural sensitivity test."],"claim_changes":["Restricted the claim to diagnosis and governance of a committee update process and withheld novelty, prevalence, demand, effect-size, fairness, artistic-quality, and decision-superiority claims."]}}