{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__aviation_aeronautics:P2:v0","cell_id":"bounded_rivalry_governance__aviation_aeronautics","proposal_index":2,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim is a specific comparative hypothesis: under common builds, scenarios, constraints, and resource accounting, the safety-gated hidden-condition two-candidate arena should yield more stable independent-validation choices than a public single-winner benchmark or expert-panel selection."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"FAA and NASA evidence establishes the importance of representative, higher-fidelity flight-control validation, while leaderboard research supports the proposed overfitting mechanism. Aircraft-specific prevalence remains uncertain, but the external signal is credible and the proposal expressly tests rather than assumes it."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"An aircraft development program with designated engineering and safety authorities is a concrete adopter class; NASA Armstrong is an identified technically capable potential evaluation partner with relevant flight-control verification infrastructure."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"The unresolved premise and incremental effect require proprietary frozen controller builds, program-specific scenario data, an accepted simulation-validity envelope, resource-use records, and authorized independent scenario custody. Public research cannot supply or substitute for these artifacts."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step is a consequence-free offline shadow study using frozen non-operational builds. It grants no integration access, procurement consequence, certification credit, hardware command, or flight authority and includes explicit halt and void conditions."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The three-to-six-controller preregistered comparison holds core inputs constant, includes two named rival methods and an independently seeded validation set, specifies measurable endpoints, and defines decision-relevant falsifiers. It can decide whether the arena merits a separately authorized HIL study."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified pipeline gate is materially NO: the incremental claim, adopter credibility, bounded evidence step, and safety/authority gate are YES. Problem prevalence and cost scope are uncertain, but neither creates a safety stop and cost uncertainty is not the basis for qualification."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step is an executable partner study with specified entrants, artifacts, comparators, controls, endpoints, invalidation rules, and falsification conditions—not an open-ended request for additional literature review."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"An aircraft development program or flight-control V&V organization with three to six existing controller candidates, a validated offline simulation environment, lawful control of protected technical data, designated engineering and safety authorities, and the ability to appoint an independent scenario custodian without attaching operational or contracting consequences to the shadow result.","required_access":"Configuration-frozen controller builds; approved aircraft models, scenario families, safety constraints, and simulation-validity boundaries; disclosed development cases plus independently custodied generators and seeds; reproducibility environments; compute, simulator-hour, legacy-tool, and sponsor-support records; protected-data handling authority; and expert-panel comparator decisions.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister and run one offline shadow downselect across three to six frozen controllers. Compare (A) the proposed safety-gated, resource-capped, hidden-condition two-candidate portfolio arena, (B) a fully disclosed public-suite single-winner benchmark, and (C) an unranked expert-panel choice, then evaluate all selections on a second independently seeded validation set inaccessible to entrants and the first custodian.","success_condition":"Method A produces materially greater preregistered selection agreement and rank stability on independent validation than methods B and C, while preserving noncompensable safety gates, reproducibility, useful portfolio diversity, and entrant-neutral resource accounting without excessive seed or lawful-weight sensitivity.","falsification_condition":"Method A is no more stable or predictive than B or C; innocuous seeds reverse its choices; it advances an inferior or redundant portfolio; resource accounting systematically favors incumbents; or scenario leakage, unverifiable builds, compensable safety violations, or disputed score-driving simulator validity invalidates the study.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner case: substantial adjacent prior art leaves a differentiated comparative effect claim, but available evidence does not establish the domain pathology or intervention advantage. A concrete program partner is indispensable because only live access to protected controllers, scenarios, resource records, and governance authority can resolve those uncertainties through the already bounded and safe comparator study."}