{"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_performance_restaging_score_05","proposal_index":5,"version":0,"title":"Modal Restaging Score for a Multi-Channel Performance Artwork","problem":"Documentation for a performance artwork commonly separates video, blocking, spoken cues, lighting states, sound events, and prop actions. A later restaging can reproduce those coordinates individually while losing the coupled temporal relationships that organize the work. A low-amplitude but persistent combination—such as performer distance, object orientation, light decay, and sound phase—may be structurally important even when none of its components is prominent enough to receive a separate cue. Conversely, copying every recorded detail can suppress variability the artist intended performers to retain.","actors":["Performance artist or authorized artistic representative","Performers","Performance conservator or archivist","Stage manager","Lighting and sound technicians","Restaging director"],"observable_state":"Across authorized rehearsals, time-synchronized records show performer locations, selected body or object relationships, prop states, lighting intensities, sound envelopes, and cue phases within artist-declared sections. The problem is observable when coordinate-level cues can be reproduced but combinations of timing and spatial relationships drift systematically, or when conventional documentation cannot distinguish protected relational structure from permitted variation.","consequence":"A future production may look superficially faithful while changing pacing, tension, focus, simultaneity, or the relationship among bodies, objects, light, and sound. Alternatively, an overly literal archive may turn a variable performance into a fixed reenactment.","affected_objective":"Enable an authorized restaging to preserve artist-designated temporal and relational structure while retaining declared performer discretion, site adaptation, and acceptable variation.","intervention":"For one artist-authorized performance, divide the work into phases where a bounded local temporal model is plausible. Collect minimally invasive, time-synchronized rehearsal records and define a state vector from only artist-approved relationships and technical channels. Estimate a phase-specific transition operator from one sampled state to the next, use singular-value reduction when the observation space is wider than the available trials, and decompose the projected operator into evolving modes and scalar responses. Rank modes by persistence, held-out reconstruction, and artist-tested sensitivity rather than amplitude alone. Package the retained modes, protected variability ranges, cue combinations, couplings, residual examples, and validity conditions as a reduced-order modal restaging score. Test that score on one withheld passage with an authorized restaging team; it supplements rather than replaces video, conventional cue sheets, oral knowledge, and artist judgment.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Transformation Scope","domain_realization":"The phase-specific transition from one sampled performance state to the next under a fixed version of the work, rehearsal protocol, and local site configuration."},{"archetype_element":"State-Vector Definition","domain_realization":"Artist-approved performer-to-performer and performer-to-object relationships, prop states, lighting levels, sound envelopes, and cue phases, excluding unneeded biometric or identity data."},{"archetype_element":"Invariant Mode Basis","domain_realization":"Coupled temporal-spatial patterns whose direction is approximately preserved as a performance phase unfolds, such as a coordinated approach, light contraction, and sound attenuation."},{"archetype_element":"Modal Gain Spectrum","domain_realization":"For each phase-specific mode, an estimated decay, persistence, growth, reversal, or oscillatory response between sampled states."},{"archetype_element":"Dominant Mode Selection Rule","domain_realization":"Retain a mode only if it is stable across rehearsal resamples and either supports held-out reconstruction, protects an artist-designated relationship, or materially changes an authorized fidelity assessment during sensitivity testing."},{"archetype_element":"Stable/Unstable Mode Partition","domain_realization":"Separate bounded, decaying, persistent, oscillatory, and deviation-amplifying modes within each declared phase, without treating persistence or growth as inherently artistically desirable or undesirable."},{"archetype_element":"Modal Intervention Map","domain_realization":"Map restaging controls—cue timing, relative placement, prop transition, light fade, and sound phase—to the modal coordinates they influence and to protected performer discretion."},{"archetype_element":"Reconstruction Residual Check","domain_realization":"Reconstruct withheld rehearsal passages from retained modes and preserve unexplained gestures, improvisations, transitions, and technical events as visible residuals."},{"archetype_element":"Mode Drift Monitor","domain_realization":"Recheck modal directions and gains after performer substitution, site adaptation, score revision, equipment change, or repeated restaging mismatch."},{"archetype_element":"Interpretation Scope Contract","domain_realization":"The modes describe measured temporal relationships within named phases and conditions; they do not define the work's meaning, artistic value, ideal performance, or every acceptable realization."},{"archetype_element":"Mode-Coupling Register","domain_realization":"Record when adjusting one cue combination moves several retained modes or constrains an artist-protected improvisational range."},{"archetype_element":"Local Linearization Window","domain_realization":"Limit each model to its declared performance phase, tempo range, staging geometry, technical configuration, and bounded variation envelope."},{"archetype_element":"Spectral Gap Threshold","domain_realization":"Name individual modes only when retained directions remain separated and stable across rehearsal resamples; otherwise archive the near-degenerate directions as a joint subspace."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"singular_value_decomposition","role":"Reduce the rectangular rehearsal snapshot mapping into paired input and output directions, exposing a candidate low-dimensional subspace without requiring every recorded channel to become an independent cue.","counterfactual_removal":"Without this reduction, limited rehearsal evidence may be insufficient for a stable transition estimate, and the archive may preserve measurement coordinates rather than coupled behavior."},{"mechanism_slug":"eigendecomposition_workflow","role":"Decompose each explicit projected phase-transition operator into evolving directions and scalar responses that describe persistence, decay, reversal, and oscillation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without operator decomposition, the score would contain correlated patterns but no transformation-defined account of how those patterns evolve through the performance."},{"mechanism_slug":"modal_sensitivity_sweep","role":"Perturb one modal coordinate or feasible cue combination within an authorized rehearsal and record effects on artist-designated relationships, technical channels, other modes, and permitted variability.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the sweep, high-amplitude modes could be mistaken for restaging priorities and the consequences of cue adjustments would remain unknown."},{"mechanism_slug":"reduced_order_model","role":"Turn the retained phase modes into a compact, runnable surrogate that a restaging team can use to inspect timing and relational consequences before a full rehearsal.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the reduced-order artifact, the decomposition would remain an analysis rather than an independently usable restaging instrument."},{"mechanism_slug":"residual_reconstruction_test","role":"Reconstruct withheld passages and inspect both error magnitude and structured residuals, especially artist-protected improvisations and low-amplitude relational events.","counterfactual_removal":"Without residual testing, compression could silently remove meaningful variation or omit a low-energy relationship essential to the work."},{"mechanism_slug":"spectral_gap_monitor","role":"Track mode separation and direction drift across rehearsals, performers, sites, and technical substitutions before reusing the modal score.","counterfactual_removal":"Without gap and drift checks, a fixed score could prescribe obsolete modes after the performance system changes."},{"mechanism_slug":"spectral_decomposition_report","role":"Carry the basis, gains, protected variability, coupling register, residual examples, phase boundaries, and prohibited interpretations into the preservation record.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the bounded report, future teams could mistake descriptive local modes for mandatory choreography or a complete account of the artwork."}],"causal_chain":["A multi-channel performance evolves through coupled transitions among bodies, objects, light, sound, and cues.","Coordinate-separated documentation records components but can omit combinations that persist or organize change through time.","Authorized rehearsal snapshots make phase-specific local transition operators estimable.","Singular-value reduction bounds the measurement space, and decomposition of the projected operator exposes evolving relational modes and their scalar responses.","Sensitivity testing distinguishes visually large modes from modes whose alteration changes artist-designated relationships or permissible variation.","Held-out reconstruction determines which modes are sufficient and exposes structured behavior that must remain outside the reduced representation.","The retained modes become a modal restaging score that links feasible cues to relational dynamics while carrying explicit variability and interpretation limits.","A withheld-passage trial tests whether an authorized team can use the score without suppressing improvisation or departing from protected relationships.","Drift and residual checks determine whether the score remains usable after performer, site, equipment, or version changes."],"baseline":"The baseline is a conventional preservation package containing video recordings, scripts, blocking diagrams, technical cue sheets, prop lists, interviews, and oral handoff. The bounded comparison asks whether the modal score adds held-out relational reconstruction and usable restaging guidance while preserving the same source materials and artist authority.","nearest_rivals":["Multi-camera video documentation, which preserves rich surface evidence but leaves future teams to infer which relationships are structural and which are contingent.","Conventional stage-management cue sheets, which synchronize named events but may not encode coupled continuous relationships among performers and technical channels.","Laban-like, musical, graphical, or artist-authored notation, which can represent movement and timing but may not estimate transformation-specific persistence, gain, or residual behavior.","Oral transmission through original performers and collaborators, which carries tacit knowledge but can change or become unavailable across restagings.","A complete sensor-data archive, which preserves measurements without selecting action-relevant modes or defining an interpretation and variability contract."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's distinguishing feature is a restaging artifact organized around phase-specific invariant temporal modes, scalar evolution, sensitivity, residuals, and protected variability rather than around isolated cues or exhaustive recording. It does not claim that the artifact captures the work completely or improves restaging outcomes over the listed rivals.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The artist or authorized representative determines protected relationships, permissible variability, phase boundaries, and artistic acceptance. Performers control consent for rehearsal capture; the conservator governs preservation records; the restaging director and technicians control only authorized implementation within the score's bounds.","authorized_first_step":"Document one nonpublic rehearsal of one authorized version using existing technical logs and minimally invasive positional or object tracking, then model and test a single bounded passage without changing the canonical score or public performance.","excluded_actions":["No biometric identification, emotion inference, health inference, or capture beyond artist- and performer-approved variables.","No automated direction, evaluation, replacement, or ranking of performers.","No conversion of measured averages into mandatory bodily positions or timing.","No deletion or replacement of conventional documentation, testimony, or artist-authored notation.","No public deployment or canonical score revision based solely on the modal model.","No reuse across performers, sites, equipment configurations, or versions outside the interpretation contract without revalidation.","No classification of improvisation or residual behavior as error merely because it is not reconstructed."],"halt_rollback":"Stop capture or testing if consent changes, equipment impedes performance, a performer feels constrained or unsafe, protected variability is reduced, or residual and mode-stability criteria fail. Remove temporary sensors, retain the existing canonical materials unchanged, restrict or delete captured data under the consent agreement, and mark the modal score nonoperative."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Phase-specific modes fail to reproduce across rehearsals, the performance is governed primarily by intentional improvisation or discrete cues rather than a stable local transition, or conventional cue and video materials reconstruct withheld relationships as well as the modal representation with fewer assumptions.","problem_falsifier":"Authorized restaging tests show that coordinate-level documentation already preserves all artist-designated relationships and variability, with no systematic relational drift or omitted coupled behavior.","intervention_falsifier":"The reduced modal score fails held-out reconstruction thresholds, produces unstable or near-degenerate directions, cannot be used by a restaging team without additional unrecorded knowledge, or causes protected improvisation and relational fidelity to worsen relative to the conventional package.","risks":["Sparse rehearsals may produce an underdetermined or overfit transition operator.","Segmenting the work into phases may impose boundaries the artist does not recognize.","Sensors and observation may alter performer timing or attention.","A locally linear model may misrepresent transitions, improvisations, and abrupt cues.","Low reconstruction error may coexist with loss of artistic meaning.","Mode labels may freeze one realization into an apparent canonical form.","Future teams may privilege the compact score over testimony, video, or embodied knowledge.","Sensitive rehearsal records may expose performers or artistic processes beyond their consent.","Technical substitutions may change modes without producing an obvious warning." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register one nonpublic study covering one artist-declared passage in one performance version: define the approved state variables, phase boundary, protected relationships, permissible variations, privacy rules, residual budget, and mode-stability criteria; record several authorized repetitions; fit the reduced transition model on a subset and reconstruct withheld repetitions; compare it with a coordinate-wise cue interpolation baseline; conduct one artist-approved modal sensitivity perturbation; and ask an authorized restaging team to interpret the resulting score alongside the conventional archive. The evidence may determine only whether further work on this performance is warranted.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 corrected coupled visual-output errors in multi-projector hardware. Proposal 2 diagnosed physical vibration and conservation risks in a kinetic sculpture. Proposal 3 analyzed visitor movement among exhibition zones and changed spatial or textual route affordances. Proposal 4 analyzed an acquisition committee's score-update dynamics and changed deliberation procedures. This proposal instead addresses preservation and authorized restaging of the internal temporal relationships of a performance artwork. Its transformation is the phase-by-phase evolution of performer, object, light, sound, and cue states; its intervention is a reduced archival and rehearsal score; and its adoption decision concerns future transmission of the work. It neither calibrates display equipment, modifies a sculpture, redirects visitors, nor governs selection decisions, making it independently adoptable from all four earlier proposals.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Created a fifth independently adoptable candidate with a problem, intervention, evidence path, and adoption decision distinct from all earlier proposals.","Preserved transformation-defined modal analysis, scalar responses, sensitivity mapping, residual visibility, drift controls, and bounded authority."],"conceptual_changes":["Applied invariant-mode decomposition to preservation and restaging of multi-channel performance relationships."],"operational_changes":["Specified phase-bounded rehearsal capture, a reduced modal restaging score, performer consent, protected improvisation, and a withheld-passage trial."],"evidence_changes":["Added held-out comparison with coordinate-wise cue interpolation, artist-approved sensitivity testing, and usability review by an authorized restaging team."],"claim_changes":["Limited the proposal to a performance-specific feasibility test and withheld novelty, prevalence, demand, effect-size, completeness, artistic-quality, and comparative-superiority claims."]}}