{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"predictive_residual_processing__aviation_aeronautics","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"prp-aviation-load-alleviation-efference-supervisor-003","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Command-Conditioned Residual Supervisor for Active Load Alleviation","problem":"An active gust- or load-alleviation system produces control-surface motions that themselves create predictable wing-strain, acceleration, actuator, and air-data signatures. A supervisor watching raw measurements must distinguish those commanded consequences from an external gust, actuator mismatch, sensor fault, or changing aeroelastic response. Absolute thresholds can trip on normal commanded motion, while thresholds widened to tolerate that motion can make a consequential uncommanded departure harder to detect.","actors":["Flight-control law engineer","Aeroelasticity and loads engineer","Avionics integration engineer","Aircraft safety-assessment engineer","Flight-test director","Test pilot","Flight-control software configuration authority","Independent verification and validation team"],"observable_state":"In recorded simulations, hardware-in-the-loop runs, or flight-test traces, outgoing load-alleviation commands are followed by repeatable multichannel strain, acceleration, surface-position, and pressure responses. Raw-monitor excursions overlap between nominal commanded responses and injected gust, actuator, sensor, timing, or plant-model faults. Monitor logs show false trips, delayed classifications, broad threshold desensitization, or inability to attribute an excursion to commanded versus uncommanded causes.","consequence":"The supervisory layer may unnecessarily disengage load alleviation during nominal operation or may fail to recognize an external load, actuator mismatch, sensor failure, or aeroelastic-model departure promptly enough for the existing protection logic and crew procedures to respond as designed.","affected_objective":"Separate expected self-generated structural response from unexplained aircraft response so the existing flight-control supervisor receives a timely, uncertainty-tagged mismatch signal without losing raw safety limits, independent sensing, or deterministic fallback behavior.","intervention":"Tap a timestamped copy of each outgoing active-load-alleviation command before actuation. A versioned, scope-bounded forward model predicts the near-term sensor consequences of that command for the current flight condition, including surface feedback, selected strain gauges, accelerometers, and pressure measurements. The supervisor subtracts the predicted self-generated response from the actual synchronized measurements, producing signed sensor-level innovations that are combined into spatial and modal residuals. A precision-weighted gate ranks residuals using sensor health, timing confidence, model uncertainty, persistence, structural consequence, and cross-sensor coherence. Validated residuals may feed an advisory or an already-authorized supervisory state transition, but absolute structural limits, independent actuator-disagreement checks, invalid-data flags, and designated safety signals always bypass cancellation. Model staleness, timing error, out-of-envelope state, structured innovation drift, version mismatch, reconstruction-budget breach, or excessive model disagreement disables cancellation and restores the existing raw-signal monitoring path. Full raw windows are sampled independently, and model revisions occur only through offline analysis, verification, and configuration approval.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Prediction target and horizon","domain_realization":"The target is the short-horizon multichannel sensor response attributable to issued load-alleviation surface commands within declared flight-condition, configuration, frequency, and latency bounds."},{"archetype_element":"Predictive feedforward model","domain_realization":"A timestamped copy of the outgoing command enters a versioned forward model before the corresponding actuator and airframe response reaches the monitored sensors."},{"archetype_element":"Expected behavior","domain_realization":"The model stores predicted actuator position, wing strain, acceleration, pressure, and modal response with uncertainty for each command-response window."},{"archetype_element":"Actual behavior","domain_realization":"Synchronized sensors provide calibrated observations with channel identity, health state, acquisition time, latency estimate, and configuration provenance."},{"archetype_element":"Prediction comparator and error signal","domain_realization":"The supervisor calculates signed observed-minus-predicted innovations and preserves their sensor, spatial, modal, temporal, and directional structure."},{"archetype_element":"Precision weighting","domain_realization":"Residual gain depends on sensor reliability, timing accuracy, model uncertainty, persistence, cross-channel coherence, and the structural consequence of the affected mode rather than amplitude alone."},{"archetype_element":"Residual propagation","domain_realization":"Only validated unexplained response is propagated to the advisory or supervisory decision layer; the predicted command-induced component remains reconstructible from the active model state."},{"archetype_element":"Hierarchical prediction stack","domain_realization":"Sensor innovations are first evaluated locally, then unresolved coherent errors are combined into wing-region and aeroelastic-mode residuals before escalation."},{"archetype_element":"Synchronization and provenance","domain_realization":"Command sequence, flight-condition state, sensor clock, plant-model checksum, parameter set, and software configuration must be compatible before cancellation is permitted."},{"archetype_element":"Residual error budget","domain_realization":"The design bounds per-channel reconstruction disagreement, cumulative cancelled energy, timing error, and unpropagated consequence-weighted residual mass."},{"archetype_element":"Independent raw audit","domain_realization":"Scheduled, random, and risk-stratified full command-and-sensor windows bypass cancellation and are compared with predicted-plus-residual reconstruction by an independent analysis path."},{"archetype_element":"Fallback and safety bypass","domain_realization":"Raw structural limits, actuator disagreement, invalid-data states, out-of-envelope operation, synchronization failure, and model drift bypass or disable cancellation and restore the pre-existing monitor."},{"archetype_element":"Update rule","domain_realization":"Accepted residual evidence is replayed offline to identify model, sensor, timing, configuration, or threshold errors; no flight-time parameter learning is allowed."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"efference_copy_cancellation","role":"Uses a copy of the outgoing load-alleviation command to predict and subtract its expected sensor consequences, leaving the uncommanded remainder for supervisory attention.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the command copy, the system cannot causally distinguish self-generated load signatures from external or faulty response and becomes a generic anomaly monitor."},{"mechanism_slug":"innovation_residual_filter","role":"Carries prediction and measurement uncertainty into the signed correction and updates the monitored response estimate without treating every raw excursion equally.","counterfactual_removal":"The supervisor would lack a disciplined way to balance model confidence against noisy or degraded measurements and could become either unstable or overconfident."},{"mechanism_slug":"hierarchical_prediction_error_loop","role":"Allows expected response to be removed at sensor and wing-region levels while only coherent, unresolved modal error reaches the supervisory layer.","counterfactual_removal":"Every local sensor discrepancy would compete directly for supervisory attention, or a low-level mismatch could be duplicated across several modal alerts."},{"mechanism_slug":"precision_weighted_error_gate","role":"Weights residuals by reliability, timing, consequence, persistence, coherence, uncertainty, and processing budget before propagation.","counterfactual_removal":"Noisy high-amplitude channels could dominate while a smaller, reliable residual associated with a consequential structural mode is suppressed."},{"mechanism_slug":"model_version_checksum_handshake","role":"Verifies compatibility among the active control law, forward plant model, parameter set, command semantics, sensor mapping, and supervisory reconstruction.","counterfactual_removal":"Cancellation could use a model for a different control-law or aircraft configuration and silently subtract the wrong expected response."},{"mechanism_slug":"residual_comparison_test","role":"Examines innovations for bias, correlation, frequency structure, flight-condition dependence, and disagreement with a rival observer or raw audit stream.","counterfactual_removal":"Persistent model error could be classified as noise, allowing the supervisor to remain active after its causal assumptions fail."},{"mechanism_slug":"shadow_raw_channel_sampling","role":"Preserves independent full command-and-sensor windows to test what cancellation removes and whether predicted-plus-residual reconstruction remains faithful.","counterfactual_removal":"The supervisor would be evaluated mainly through the residuals it chose to expose, leaving over-cancelled external signals invisible."},{"mechanism_slug":"raw_signal_fallback_switch","role":"Disables cancellation and restores the existing raw-monitor path when scope, synchronization, uncertainty, drift, reconstruction, or safety conditions fail.","counterfactual_removal":"A mistimed or misspecified forward model could continue filtering evidence precisely when the supervisor should distrust it."},{"mechanism_slug":"prediction_error_replay_buffer","role":"Stores selected command, prediction, raw response, residual, uncertainty, model version, and intervention context for offline fault attribution and regression testing.","counterfactual_removal":"Transient mismatches could not be reproduced reliably, and later model changes could not be tested against the exact conditions that generated them."},{"mechanism_slug":"surprise_to_action_bridge","role":"Maps a validated residual class to a predefined advisory, engineering record, or already-authorized supervisory transition with acknowledgement and provenance.","counterfactual_removal":"The residual would remain a diagnostic trace without a defined owner or bounded downstream response."}],"causal_chain":["The active load-alleviation controller issues a surface command and simultaneously supplies a timestamped command copy to the forward-response model.","The model predicts the command-attributable actuator and structural sensor response before the corresponding measurements arrive.","The comparator subtracts this expected self-generated response from synchronized observations and preserves the signed multichannel innovation.","Precision, consequence, persistence, and coherence weighting separates trustworthy unexplained response from measurement noise and timing uncertainty.","Local residuals that remain unresolved combine into wing-region or modal errors and propagate to the supervisory layer with model and source provenance.","Raw safety limits and independent disagreement checks remain continuously visible, while random full windows test whether cancellation is removing genuine external response.","Structured drift, reconstruction error, invalid timing, model mismatch, or out-of-scope operation disables cancellation and restores the existing raw-monitor configuration.","Validated residuals reach a predefined advisory or authorized supervisory action and enter an offline replay buffer.","Post-run review attributes each material residual to external disturbance, actuator behavior, sensor error, timing, model misspecification, or boundary failure before any configuration-controlled revision."],"baseline":"The comparison condition is the existing load-alleviation supervisor using absolute or flight-condition-scheduled raw-sensor thresholds, independent actuator-disagreement logic, and fixed disengagement rules without subtracting the predicted sensor consequences of individual outgoing commands.","nearest_rivals":["Absolute or flight-condition-scheduled limits applied directly to raw structural and actuator measurements","A conventional state observer that estimates aircraft or actuator state but does not explicitly cancel command-generated sensor consequences for residual propagation","Rule-based command-conditioned threshold widening during active control-surface motion","Model-based fault detection that produces fault flags without reconstructive residual representation, raw audit sampling, or governed decompression","Redundant sensor voting and actuator-command-versus-position comparison without a forward model of the resulting aeroelastic response"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's distinctive causal claim is that a copy of the outgoing alleviation command can account for the expected self-generated portion of the subsequent structural response, allowing the signed unexplained remainder—not the complete raw excursion—to become the supervisory and learning signal. This claim depends on synchronized reconstruction, precision weighting, independent raw audits, protected raw limits, and deterministic fallback. If an ordinary observer or command-scheduled raw threshold provides equivalent discrimination and safety behavior with less synchronization and governance burden, the rationale for cancellation fails.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The established flight-control configuration authority, safety-assessment process, and flight-test director retain authority over control-law changes and test use. The test pilot retains operational authority under the approved test plan. The residual supervisor has no independent authority to command surfaces, expand the flight envelope, or modify certified protection logic.","authorized_first_step":"Implement the supervisor only in offline simulation and hardware-in-the-loop shadow mode using an existing aircraft model and recorded or generated command-and-sensor traces. Its outputs may be logged and reviewed but may not enter the aircraft command path, alter an operational display, inhibit an existing alert, or trigger an actual supervisory transition.","excluded_actions":["No direct or indirect flight-control, propulsion, trim, envelope-protection, or guidance command","No removal, masking, delay, or relaxation of existing raw structural limits or actuator-disagreement protections","No autonomous in-flight update of the forward model, uncertainty terms, thresholds, or consequence weights","No use outside the approved aircraft configuration, flight-condition envelope, command set, sensor map, or latency bounds","No replacement of authoritative flight-data, test-instrumentation, or safety-monitor recordings with reconstructed data","No interpretation of a small residual as proof that the aircraft response is safe or nominal","No transition from advisory evaluation to a live supervisory input without separate verification, safety assessment, configuration approval, and test authorization"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the shadow evaluation for provenance loss, nonreproducible timing, reconstruction failure, or leakage of test labels into model tuning. In any later separately authorized trial, a missed heartbeat, clock error, checksum mismatch, stale model, sensor-invalid state, out-of-envelope condition, structured innovation drift, excessive reconstruction disagreement, or independent raw-limit event immediately disables cancellation and restores the pre-existing raw supervisory path. Re-entry requires a clean synchronized state, valid configuration manifest, hysteresis dwell, and the authorization specified by the test plan."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The command-attributable sensor response is not sufficiently predictable or separable from external response over the required latency and flight envelope, and an existing raw-threshold monitor or conventional observer matches the preregistered fault and disturbance discrimination criteria with lower synchronization, computation, verification, and fallback burden.","problem_falsifier":"Representative traces show that commanded load-alleviation responses do not materially overlap the raw signatures used by the existing supervisor, or the existing logic already conditions those signatures on commands without false trips, desensitization, or attribution ambiguity relevant to an authorized decision.","intervention_falsifier":"In preregistered simulation and hardware-in-the-loop trials, cancellation suppresses an injected external gust, aeroelastic departure, actuator mismatch, or sensor fault; produces unacceptable reconstruction error; cannot tolerate bounded timing or model mismatch; destabilizes residual classification; or enters raw fallback so frequently that it offers no usable separation beyond the baseline.","risks":["An inaccurate forward model may over-cancel a real external load or under-cancel a nominal commanded response.","Command and sensor clock skew may convert correct predictions into misleading signed residuals.","Shared plant assumptions between the controller and supervisor may create correlated blind spots.","A tightly calibrated model may appear confident after an aircraft configuration, mass distribution, structural stiffness, or actuator response change.","Combining sensor residuals into modal errors may hide a localized failure or duplicate one discrepancy across several modes.","False residuals may cause nuisance advisories or unnecessary disengagement if later connected to operational logic.","Repeated fallback may encourage pressure to desensitize trip conditions instead of correcting the model or scope.","Offline updates may learn the consequences of prior supervisory or pilot reactions as though they were uncontrolled plant behavior.","Random raw audits may miss rare combinations of command, gust, and fault, while risk-stratified audits may test only anticipated failures.","The residual supervisor may add software, verification, latency, and configuration complexity exceeding its decision value." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register one bounded simulation and hardware-in-the-loop study for a single aircraft configuration and active-load-alleviation function, capped at thirty scenario families. Freeze the prediction horizon, command set, sensor set, flight-condition envelope, model version, uncertainty rules, protected raw limits, residual budget, fallback triggers, rival monitors, and pass/fail criteria before scoring. Exercise nominal alleviation commands, external gusts, actuator lag and runaway signatures, sensor bias and dropout, aeroelastic-parameter perturbations, clock skew, packet loss, configuration mismatch, and combined command-plus-disturbance cases. Compare the residual supervisor with raw scheduled thresholds, rule-based command-conditioned thresholds, and a conventional observer. Measure reconstruction error, residual bias and correlation, protected-event capture, classification latency, nuisance transitions, over-cancelled external-response energy, fallback occupancy, computational deadline compliance, and disagreement with independently retained raw windows. The result can only authorize further shadow evaluation or rejection; it cannot authorize connection to a live control or protection path.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 addressed air-to-ground capacity during flight testing by using matched onboard and ground predictors to transmit reconstructive telemetry residuals. This proposal does not compress or prioritize a radio link: it uses an outgoing control command as a causal efference copy, subtracts the predicted self-generated airframe response onboard, and exposes unexplained response to a flight-control supervisor. Proposal 2 addressed qualified human attention during offline composite ultrasound review by comparing a stored scan with a panel-specific expected image. This proposal operates on dynamic command-response behavior, uses millisecond-scale control and structural signals rather than inspection imagery, and closes its loop through deterministic supervisory fallback and configuration-controlled control-law verification rather than maintenance disposition. It is an independently adoptable flight-control monitoring subsystem and is not a feature of either prior proposal.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Created a third complete proposal centered on command-conditioned cancellation and flight-control supervision rather than telemetry bandwidth or inspection review.","Specified distinct actors, authority boundaries, causal path, safeguards, rivals, falsifiers, and bounded evidence for comparison with both sealed proposals."],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}