{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__aviation_aeronautics:P4:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__aviation_aeronautics","search_queries":["site:gao.gov avionics vendor lock-in open systems technical data aviation gateway competition","site:opengroup.org FACE Technical Standard avionics portability conformance official","site:acquisition.gov modular open systems approach competition vendor lock-in data rights DoD official","site:faa.gov advisory circular avionics network security integrated modular avionics AC 20-170","site:osd.mil modular open systems approach implementation guidebook 2024 pdf MOSA verification interfaces competition","site:gao.gov FACE avionics open architecture interoperability conformance competition report 2024","site:army.mil FACE avionics open systems requirements portability supplier competition official","aircraft health monitoring data interoperability open architecture gateway standard MIMOSA OSA-CBM primary research","site:faa.gov aircraft systems information security protection advisory circular AC 20-42 cybersecurity avionics network","site:faa.gov AC aircraft network security avionics cybersecurity maintenance data","site:faa.gov 14 CFR 25.1309 systems equipment installations safety assessment avionics data network official","site:easa.europa.eu aircraft health monitoring data interoperability cybersecurity guidance","site:army.mil FACE standard avionics portability conformance official Future Airborne Capability Environment","site:navy.mil FACE avionics open standard conformance portability official","site:defense.gov FACE avionics standard portability conformance open systems"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Defense Acquisitions: DOD Efforts to Adopt Open Systems for Its Unmanned Aircraft Systems Have Progressed Slowly (GAO-13-651)","publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","url":"https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-651.pdf","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2013-07-31","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Proprietary defense systems visibly limit competition, interoperability, component reuse, and economical upgrades.","Early open-interface requirements are materially easier and less costly than retrofitting openness later.","Aircraft examples show substantial consequences: sole-integrator technical-data control eliminated competition on the B-2, while heterogeneous C-130 configurations contributed to escalating modernization estimates.","Open-system acquisition is established policy and practice rather than a new intervention category."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"AFARS Appendix E, E-1.1 Purpose","publisher":"Acquisition.gov / U.S. Department of Defense","url":"https://www.acquisition.gov/afars/e-1.1-purpose","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2025-07-11","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The Army expressly identifies poorly defined IP, data-deliverable, and license requirements as a cause of vendor lock-in and sole-source arrangements.","Army acquisition authorities seek maximum practical competition and mitigation of proprietary restrictions on re-procurement and sustainment.","Program offices and contracting officers are identifiable adopters with authority to prepare lifecycle IP strategies and solicitation requirements."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)","publisher":"Naval Air Systems Command","url":"https://www.navair.navy.mil/MOSA","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"undated; page current through 2026-08-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NAVAIR describes MOSA as an integrated business, technical, contracting, and legal strategy for competitive and affordable lifecycle acquisition.","MOSA already requires modular interfaces, accepted standards, portability, reusability, and interoperability and applies to legacy and new systems.","NAVAIR identifies FACE as an open avionics software standard, OMS as a common-data-interface standard, and independent conformance resources as implementation mechanisms.","NAVAIR and its program offices are identifiable aviation adopters and authorizers for this class of intervention."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"MIMOSA OSA-CBM","publisher":"MIMOSA","url":"https://www.mimosa.org/mimosa-osa-cbm/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"undated; OSA-CBM release history through 2010-06-29","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A domain-specific open architecture for condition-based-maintenance information exchange already exists.","OSA-CBM specifies functional blocks, inputs, outputs, data structures, and interfaces while permitting multiple technical implementations, including aircraft-health applications.","The standard was created partly in response to proprietary maintenance systems and explicitly aims at interoperability, interchangeability, multiple suppliers, and component-level competition.","A frozen health-data interface is therefore close prior art, not a novel foundation."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"The Army’s Future Tactical Uncrewed Aircraft System Program Achieves Two Major Milestones","publisher":"U.S. Army","url":"https://www.army.mil/article-amp/279556/the_armys_future_tactical_uncrewed_aircraft_system_program_achieves_two_major_milestones","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2024-09-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The Army conducted competitive MOSA conformance evaluations involving two aircraft prototypes.","Evaluators replaced vendor mission computers with a third-party surrogate and mixed third-party and vendor software to measure openness and modularity independently.","Government-led substitution testing before program selection demonstrates technical and workflow feasibility for the proposal’s bench-replacement concept.","This practice is a particularly close analogue to the proposed bidder-independent plugfest and replacement exercise."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"AC 43-218: Operational Authorization of Integrated Aircraft Health Management System","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1035729","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2022-07-08","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Aircraft health monitoring is an established operational function using onboard sensors, data transmission, and analysis.","Health-monitoring outputs may support airworthiness determinations, making integrity, records, workflow, and operational authorization consequential rather than purely commercial.","FAA guidance supplies an identifiable operational-authority pathway while confirming that a procurement score cannot replace regulatory compliance."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"AC 20-170: Integrated Modular Avionics Development, Verification, Integration and Approval Using RTCA/DO-297 and TSO-C153","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/440279","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2010-10-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FAA has an established approval framework for development, verification, integration, and installation of integrated modular avionics.","Interoperability or procurement results do not themselves authorize aircraft installation; the design-approval applicant and FAA airworthiness processes retain authority.","The proposed non-operational bench step is technically separable from later installation approval."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"AC 119-1A: Operational Authorization of Aircraft Network Security Program","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1042159","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2023-09-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Onboard aircraft-network security can require a distinct operational authorization process.","RTCA DO-355 continuing-airworthiness security guidance is recognized as an alternative technical pathway, while FAA operational authorization remains controlling.","Interface openness and portability cannot compensate for unresolved aircraft-network security requirements."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Official acquisition guidance expressly identifies proprietary data and licensing as causes of vendor lock-in and restricted recompetition. GAO documents aircraft and UAS consequences, including eliminated competition and costly modernization. MIMOSA independently identifies proprietary maintenance systems and multi-vendor health-data interoperability as a longstanding problem. The exact prevalence among current commercial fleet health-data gateways was not quantified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"NAVAIR and Army acquisition programs are identifiable adopters with expressed demand for open avionics interfaces, independent conformance, replacement, and lifecycle competition. FAA is an identifiable authorizer for integrated aircraft-health, avionics-integration, and network-security aspects. No specific fleet operator currently procuring the proposed gateway was identified.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"DoD/NAVAIR Modular Open Systems Approach","similarity":"Combines open modular interfaces with contracting, data-rights, legal, conformance, lifecycle competition, and replacement objectives in avionics acquisition.","remaining_difference":"The searched material did not show this exact aircraft-health gateway package with blinded malformed-message testing, a separately awarded harness, a migration bond, support caps, and scheduled challenger windows.","source_ids":["S2","S3"]},{"name":"MIMOSA OSA-CBM","similarity":"Provides an established vendor-neutral information architecture and interfaces specifically for condition-based maintenance, including aircraft-health implementations and component-level supplier competition.","remaining_difference":"It is an interface and information standard, not a complete source-selection, independent-test-ownership, bonding, appeal, and recurring-recompetition regime.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"Army FTUAS MOSA conformance evaluation","similarity":"Uses competing aircraft implementations, independent assessment, third-party surrogate hardware, and mixed-vendor software substitution before selection to test practical openness.","remaining_difference":"It evaluates a complete uncrewed-aircraft architecture, not an aircraft-health-data gateway, and the public account does not establish separated harness ownership, migration security, bidder-support caps, or challenger windows.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"FACE/OMS conformance and common-data practices","similarity":"NAVAIR already supports open avionics software interfaces, common data formats, independent conformance resources, portability, and replaceability.","remaining_difference":"Conformance to a standard alone does not establish downstream application onboarding effort, lifecycle migration performance, bond design, or the governance of post-award interface changes.","source_ids":["S3"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Relative to an otherwise identical conventional best-value procurement, the combined use of a bidder-independent health-data profile, cross-vendor behavioral testing, independent conformance ownership, a secured replacement exercise, capped bidder assistance, and scheduled reopening will reduce unaided application-onboarding and gateway-replacement effort without increasing safety, cybersecurity, or total lifecycle burden beyond pre-registered limits.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Standards for health-data exchange and modular avionics exist, and the Army has demonstrated independent third-party substitution during a competitive aircraft evaluation. FAA guidance supplies recognizable approval and security pathways. However, no source verified the complete governance bundle, migration-bond enforceability, availability of multiple faithful gateway implementations, or predictive validity of synthetic plugfest results for an operational fleet.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Aircraft evidence shows that proprietary architecture and configuration dependence can remove competition and produce major modernization consequences; health data also affects maintenance and airworthiness decisions. Current prevalence and realized impact for the proposed gateway class remain unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S6"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Army and NAVAIR explicitly seek open interfaces, competition, independent conformance, and reduced vendor dependency. Pull is strong at the institutional level, but no named fleet owner has committed to this particular gateway arena.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Behavioral replacement testing, separate test ownership, and secured migration could improve on documentary compliance or escrow alone, but comparative advantage over contemporary MOSA procurement has not been measured.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Open avionics acquisition, health-data standards, independent conformance, and third-party substitution testing are established. Distinctiveness resides primarily in the combined governance package and its claimed comparative effect.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing interface standards and an official mixed-vendor aircraft substitution evaluation support feasibility of an isolated synthetic bench. Operational integration remains subject to system-specific safety, configuration, and security evidence.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Procurement offices can impose solicitation and data-rights terms, while engineering applicants and FAA processes retain installation and operational authority. Coordinating these authorities and negotiating proprietary rights and bonds may be difficult.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S6","S7","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal defines measurable outcomes and a safe bench boundary, and analogous independent substitution tests exist. Evidence still requires willing suppliers, proprietary artifacts, qualified assessors, and live bench work.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"A verified replacement path, portable data, and independent conformance capability could provide valuable continuity when a supplier fails or access is withdrawn. Benefit is contingent on preserving airworthiness and network-security controls.","source_ids":["S1","S6","S7","S8"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Reusable standards, synthetic tests, and common conformance tooling could extend across programs, but each aircraft architecture, safety case, configuration baseline, licensing package, and security authorization remains program-specific.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"A 12-16 week isolated bench study with a frozen synthetic message set, two independent maintenance clients, at least two gateway implementations or faithful representations, test orchestration, security isolation, technical-data review, preregistration, and independent reporting.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing lab space and generic compute/network equipment are available.","Suppliers provide software representations and limited engineering support without full certification evidence.","No aircraft, live aircraft bus, operational maintenance system, or operational data is used.","Estimate is resource-equivalent rather than a sourced vendor quotation."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Develop and govern the fleet-specific interface profile, production-grade conformance harness and reference clients, cybersecurity and safety evidence plans, IP and licensing covenants, procurement rulebook, artifact escrow, assessor qualification, and migration-bond terms.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One aircraft family and one gateway class are in scope.","Existing MOSA, health-data, and FAA frameworks are adapted rather than created from zero.","Aircraft modification and production hardware are excluded at this stage.","Legal and assurance work requires a multidisciplinary owner, laboratory, and supplier team."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"5M_TO_25M","scope":"Qualify and integrate the selected gateway for one bounded fleet or aircraft type, complete production-representative interoperability and migration tests, support safety and network-security approvals, deploy conformance infrastructure, train maintainers, and execute initial downstream-application onboarding.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is bounded to one fleet or aircraft type rather than enterprise-wide replacement.","The gateway does not require wholesale redesign of certified avionics domains.","Candidate suppliers already possess substantially mature hardware and software.","The primary gateway purchase price and fleet size could move actual cost outside this band."],"source_ids":["S1","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Maintain the interface and conformance suite, conduct configuration and cybersecurity reviews, preserve escrow and reference artifacts, audit data exports, run periodic migration/challenger exercises, support appeals, and perform post-contest review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One active fleet program is governed.","A challenger exercise occurs periodically rather than continuously.","Recurring costs exclude major aircraft modifications and supplier replacement hardware.","Independent laboratory and engineering-authority capacity remains available."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Government acquisition guidance, GAO aircraft evidence, and a health-data interoperability standard independently document proprietary lock-in, restricted competition, and interoperability burden.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Army and NAVAIR program and procurement offices visibly adopt MOSA and independent substitution/conformance evaluation, while FAA guidance identifies the relevant operational and airworthiness authorization roles.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim compares a specified governance bundle against conventional best-value procurement using unaided onboarding effort, replacement effort, undocumented dependencies, safety/security gates, and lifecycle burden.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A preregistered, isolated, synthetic-data bench study can test the claim without aircraft connection, operational data, installation approval, or procurement consequences.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the next evidence step only, isolation, synthetic data, no procurement effect, and retained engineering/FAA authority bound the risk. Operational deployment would still require aircraft-specific integration, airworthiness, health-management, and network-security authorization.","source_ids":["S6","S7","S8"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Work packages can be bounded from the demonstrated and required activities, but no direct source supplied quotations or comparable costs for this exact bench, conformance-harness, bond, or fleet deployment package.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Run a preregistered 12-16 week isolated bench study using one frozen synthetic aircraft-health producer, two independently built maintenance clients, and at least two gateway implementations or faithful software representations. Apply identical artifacts to four shadow-selection comparators: the proposed arena, conventional best-value procurement with vendor adapters, lowest-price compliance with an open interface, and source-code escrow alone. Primary outcomes are unaided client-onboarding hours, unaided gateway-replacement hours, undocumented-dependency count, export completeness, conformance disagreement, and version/rollback failures; safety and cybersecurity failures are noncompensable. Record all supplier assistance and governance labor. Falsify the incremental claim if the proposed bundle fails to materially reduce both unaided onboarding and replacement effort, cannot produce a second implementation from governed artifacts alone, introduces a safety or network-security gate failure, yields rankings unstable to reasonable scoring weights, or adds lifecycle burden exceeding the avoided integration effort. Do not connect to aircraft, operational networks, live maintenance records, or an actual award decision.","blocking_evidence":["No named fleet operator or active gateway procurement has committed to supply implementations, artifacts, evaluators, or decision authority.","No comparative experiment shows that the proposed plugfest measures predict operational application onboarding or later gateway replacement.","Supplier-specific interface, patent, licensing, technical-data, configuration, and cybersecurity constraints remain unavailable.","The feasibility and enforceability of separate conformance ownership, migration bonds, support caps, and challenger windows have not been tested with contracting and engineering authorities.","No direct 2026 cost quotations or comparable program cost data support the four resource bands.","Operational safety and aircraft-network security acceptability can only be established for a defined aircraft architecture and intended installation."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes substantial adjacent and colliding practice, not world novelty. No conclusion is made about novelty outside the eight sources, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact. The only potentially distinctive boundary retained is the comparative effect of the complete health-gateway governance bundle—independent behavioral testing, separated conformance ownership, secured migration, capped supplier assistance, and recurring challenger access—relative to contemporary open-interface procurement.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure a named fleet operator or aviation program office and independent laboratory for the isolated study.","Obtain at least two gateway implementations or faithful representations plus the minimum interface and licensing artifacts needed for independent clients.","Pre-register primary outcomes, comparator rules, effect thresholds, safety/security gates, rank-sensitivity analysis, and falsifiers.","Complete the four-regime bench comparison and publish unaided onboarding, replacement, dependency, failure, assistance, and governance-labor results.","Obtain written engineering, cybersecurity, procurement, and legal findings on operational authority, technical-data rights, separate test ownership, bond enforceability, and challenger access.","Replace resource-equivalent estimates with supplier and laboratory quotations before any procurement pilot."],"reason":"Bounded web research verifies the problem, credible authorities, extensive prior art, and feasibility of an isolated test, but cannot establish the remaining incremental effect. Answering it requires supplier artifacts, proprietary constraints, a partner laboratory, and live bench experimentation. Under the controller rule, that evidence dependency requires an empirical-research stop."},"proposal_index":4}