{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"predictive_residual_processing__aviation_aeronautics","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete flight-test telemetry proposal with scoped matched predictors, signed and precision-weighted residual transmission, ground reconstruction, synchronization, raw audits, drift controls, fallback, bounded updating, authority limits, falsifiers, and a preregistered evidence step. Its affected problem and causal path center on conserving an air-to-ground link while preserving unexpected high-rate aircraft-response evidence."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete repeat-inspection proposal with an explicit expected ultrasonic scan, structured spatial residuals, consequence-weighted review ordering, immediate raw reconstruction, independent audit tiles, decompression triggers, governed updates, human disposition authority, falsifiers, and a bounded reader study. It faithfully uses prediction-relative residuals to allocate inspector attention and is distinct from communications, control supervision, and controller coordination."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete load-alleviation supervision proposal built around a command efference copy, forward prediction of self-generated sensor effects, signed innovation propagation, hierarchical and precision weighting, protected raw limits, independent audits, deterministic fallback, offline updates, safety authority, falsifiers, and bounded simulation testing. Its intervention and causal path are command-conditioned cancellation for fault and disturbance discrimination, not stream compression or review prioritization."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Operationally complete sector-handoff proposal with a synchronized semantic baseline, typed prediction residuals, full-state reconstruction and acknowledgement, explicit missingness, mandatory bypass classes, complete-handoff audits, decompression, governed post-session updating, authority limits, falsifiers, and simulation evidence. Its affected problem is inter-controller transfer of operational understanding, with a causal path through verified shared knowledge plus acknowledged semantic corrections."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 reduces constrained airborne telemetry traffic through matched encoder-decoder prediction and transmitted numerical corrections; proposal 2 reduces inspector attention spent on predictable scan content through locally prioritized spatial residual review while retaining the full scan."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses radio-link capacity and ground waveform reconstruction; proposal 3 addresses supervisory discrimination by subtracting the predicted sensor consequences of outgoing control commands before escalating unexplained response."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 reconstructs numerical flight-test measurements across a constrained link; proposal 4 reconstructs and acknowledges a semantic air-traffic handoff from a verified shared operational baseline plus typed field differences."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 orders human review of stored ultrasonic imagery against a panel-specific expected scan; proposal 3 performs millisecond-scale command-conditioned cancellation of dynamic airframe response for a supervisory monitor."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 targets maintenance-inspection attention and structural indication disposition using spatial scan residuals; proposal 4 targets transfer-of-control understanding using synchronized semantic state, protected differences, and controller acknowledgement."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 predicts physical sensor effects from an aircraft control command and propagates unexplained dynamics to a supervisor; proposal 4 predicts shared controller knowledge and propagates discrepancies needed to reconstruct a complete coordination state."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"Every proposal specifies the archetype's essential governed loop: a bounded and versioned expectation, separately captured observation, meaningful residual, precision or consequence weighting, residual routing, reconstruction or expected-context recovery, model-state compatibility, independent raw/full-state audit, drift detection, safety bypass, decompression or fallback, and bounded learning. Each also supplies actors, observable evidence, baseline rivals, authority constraints, falsifiers, risks, and a feasible first test. Although all four necessarily share the archetype's residual-processing safeguards, they are mutually independent opportunities because they address four different bottlenecks with different interventions and causal paths: telemetry bandwidth via reconstructive coding, inspection attention via residual-first image review, control supervision via efference-copy cancellation, and inter-controller coordination via synchronized semantic reconstruction and acknowledgement."}