{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__information_theory:P4:v0","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__information_theory","proposal_index":4,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific falsifiable claim that conditioned nontrivial eigenmodes can select a small token-and-confirmation redesign that reduces held-out action-weighted multi-relay substitution loss beyond matched-budget unchanged, per-command, pairwise, universal-confirmation, and direct-cost comparators."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official aviation and spaceflight evidence plus controlled relay experiments establish consequential voice-command confusion, relay degradation, and safety relevance, while appropriately leaving the proposed modal mechanism unproven."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A safety-critical voice-command program with a communications-protocol engineer, command-vocabulary owner, data owner, operational owner, and safety authority is a concrete partner class; NASA command-and-control programs and governed aviation communications illustrate this class."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Resolving the claim requires an authorized fixed vocabulary, representative speakers and channel conditions, configuration details, action-specific substitution costs, controlled relay trials, and safety/workflow thresholds that public research cannot supply."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is restricted to approved recordings or consenting participants, simulated impairments, frozen configurations, and non-operational analysis; it preserves the current vocabulary, mandatory confirmations, fallback controls, and safety-authority control over any later change."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The preregistered study fixes the alphabet, participants, channel strata, transcription version, relay depths, intervention budget, endpoints, holdout split, and matched-budget comparators, with explicit premise and intervention falsifiers."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES. Cost scope is uncertain rather than materially negative and is not the basis for qualification; the decisive first study remains bounded despite later partner-specific assurance and rollout costs."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is a concrete partnered experiment that estimates and stress-tests the relay operator, selects a bounded redesign without held-out outcomes, and conducts a decisive comparator-based evaluation under declared success and stopping rules."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A safety-critical organization operating a fixed 8–20-item spoken-command vocabulary through radio, transcription, or human relay, with an identifiable vocabulary owner, communications engineer, corpus/data owner, operational training owner, and independent safety authorizer; a spacecraft command-and-control program, aviation communications unit, or comparable emergency-control service fits the profile.","required_access":"Authorization to study one frozen command vocabulary and relay procedure; approved recordings or approximately 24 consenting representative speakers; simulated channel/noise conditions; one frozen transcription version; relay depths one through four; command-specific safety losses, accuracy floors, latency and confirmation constraints; configuration metadata; and permission for offline analysis and a non-operational shadow trial.","bounded_empirical_test":"Pre-register a controlled, speaker-and-condition-split study of one frozen vocabulary across four declared channel strata and relay depths one through four. Fit the one-step confusion operator only on training data; test conditioning, bootstrap stability, spectral gaps, residuals, and single-operator adequacy against depth-specific alternatives. Select at most three token changes and one targeted confirmation without viewing held-out outcomes. On held-out chains, compare the redesign with the unchanged vocabulary, universal confirmation, worst-command renaming, pairwise-confusability design, and direct action-cost optimization under identical change-count and latency budgets.","success_condition":"A reproducible, sufficiently conditioned nontrivial mode predicts held-out multi-relay substitutions beyond coordinate-level metrics, and the modal redesign yields lower action-weighted hazardous substitution loss at maximum relay depth than every matched-budget comparator while satisfying predeclared per-command accuracy, latency, subgroup, residual, modal-stability, and no-new-hazard thresholds.","falsification_condition":"Disqualify the premise if no stable nontrivial mode exists, conditioning or operator-adequacy thresholds fail, or coordinate-level measures explain held-out relay errors adequately. Falsify the intervention if any matched-budget comparator equals or improves every declared safety endpoint, or if the redesign worsens a hazardous substitution, subgroup or command floor, latency, residual structure, or confirmation requirement.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case: adjacent practices already establish confusion-matrix testing, vocabulary redesign, and confirmation, but the retained modal-selection claim is distinct and unresolved. Its central uncertainties concern real relay dynamics and comparative effect, which require governed partner data and controlled access rather than more web research. The proposed first step is non-operational, comparator-based, bounded, and capable of decisively rejecting both the modal premise and the claimed intervention advantage."}