{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__art_aesthetics:P1:v0","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__art_aesthetics","proposal_index":1,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific, falsifiable claim that stable correction-cycle modes can predict held-out changes and guide a reversible correction while preserving seam and focal-hierarchy outcomes at least as well as coordinate-wise correction."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent research, museum sources, manufacturer documentation, standards, and deployed products substantiate multi-projector color variation, seams, drift, calibration complexity, and artist-intention-sensitive stewardship, although the narrower modal mechanism remains unverified."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"An installation artist working with a museum media-conservation lab, exhibition venue, or projection-production team is a concrete partner class with relevant authority, equipment, technicians, and artwork-specific responsibilities."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The decisive uncertainties require a live fixed installation, proprietary calibration controls and presets, repeated measurements, equipment-safe perturbations, and artist evaluation; public research cannot establish mode identifiability or aesthetic performance."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step is nonpublic, reversible, limited to preapproved equipment-safe perturbations and duplicated presets, preserves an untouched approved preset, assigns final aesthetic authority to the artist, and includes explicit halt and rollback rules."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The single-installation preregistered pilot fixes scenes, zones, viewing conditions, perturbation bounds, held-out trials, and comparators, with quantitative prediction, conditioning, residual, stability, seam, and blinded-review endpoints that can terminate further development."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive verified pipeline gates are YES, including problem support, adopter credibility, incremental claim, bounded evidence step, and safety and authority. Cost is uncertain rather than materially negative and is not the sole reason for partnering."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is a dimensioned field experiment with secured installation access, randomized perturbations, held-out prediction, explicit comparator models, duplicated presets, preregistered thresholds, and concrete falsification rules."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"An artist-authorized museum media-conservation lab, exhibition venue, or projection-production team operating an existing multi-projector artwork, with a calibration technician, reversible preset controls, measurement equipment, and authority to conduct a nonpublic proofing session.","required_access":"One fixed multi-projector installation; artist-approved reference scenes and outcome definitions; zone-level photometric and seam measurements; reversible gain, curve, mask, and blend controls; duplicated and untouched presets; equipment limits; technician time; and artist plus invited proofing-viewer review.","bounded_empirical_test":"Run one preregistered nonpublic session using two fixed scenes, one viewing position, controlled warm-up and ambient light, an 8–12-variable state/control design, randomized replicated safe perturbations, and at least 25% held-out trials. Compare the regularized modal transition model against an independent-coordinate model and ordinary technician correction, then conduct randomized blinded review of duplicated modal and ordinary-correction presets only if conditioning, stability, spectral-gap, prediction, and residual gates pass.","success_condition":"The modal model beats the independent-coordinate comparator by the preregistered held-out signed-change prediction margin, passes condition-number, mode-angle stability, spectral-separation, drift, and structured-residual thresholds, and its selected preset preserves preregistered seam visibility and focal hierarchy at least as well as ordinary correction under blinded artist review.","falsification_condition":"Stop if baseline cycles lack reproducible coupled structure; the simpler independent-coordinate model performs equivalently or better with lower complexity; modes rotate, are ill-conditioned, or lack spectral separation; prediction or residual thresholds fail; protected seam or focal outcomes worsen; or the artist rejects the modal preset.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case: adjacent established calibration practice leaves a differentiated modal-dynamics claim, credible external evidence supports the underlying operational problem, and the remaining questions cannot be answered through further web research. A partner-controlled live installation is indispensable, and the proposed reversible comparator-based pilot can decisively support or falsify continuation without exposing a public artwork or overwriting its approved calibration."}