{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__aviation_aeronautics:P1:v0","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__aviation_aeronautics","search_queries":["site:faa.gov trajectory based operations trajectory prediction modernization need decision support","site:nasa.gov air traffic trajectory prediction interoperability interface trajectory based operations","site:eurocontrol.int trajectory predictor common service specification interoperability","flight trajectory prediction standard interface conformance aviation FIXM FF-ICE","site:eurocontrol.int trajectory predictor benchmark interoperability common trajectory predictor","site:eurocontrol.int SWIM service specification trajectory prediction service","site:faa.gov software safety ground air traffic systems assurance order safety management system","site:bls.gov software developers occupational employment wage 2025","\"Comparison of Aircraft Trajectory Predictor Capabilities\" NASA NTRS","AIAA-2011-6856 trajectory predictor interoperability Vivona Cate Green PDF"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"NextGen","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/nextgen","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2024","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Trajectory-Based Operations is an explicit FAA goal requiring a common four-dimensional understanding of planned flight paths.","Operational decision-support systems including TFMS, TBFM, and TFDM already use trajectory-related information across the National Airspace System.","FAA is an identifiable potential authorizer and adopter for changes affecting its air-traffic systems."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Chapter 13: Decision Support Tools","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap13_section_1.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["EDST derives expected aircraft trajectories and predicts aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to-airspace conflicts.","Controllers evaluate conflict-probe alerts, so predictor behavior can affect operational decision support.","FAA warns that stale trajectory-model inputs can make displayed entries and probe results misleading."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Comparison of Aircraft Trajectory Predictor Capabilities and Their Impacts on Air Traffic Management Automation Interoperability","publisher":"NASA Ames Research Center and American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics","url":"https://aviationsystems.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2011/AIAA-2011-6856-TN2924.pdf","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2011-09-20","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Five airborne, ground, research, and operational trajectory predictors differed in constraints, internal models, and output data.","Interoperability through shared trajectory information depends on understanding both sending and receiving predictor assumptions and requirements.","Prior work already compared intent, behavior-model, and four-dimensional-trajectory sharing as interoperability approaches."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Flight Information Exchange Model (FIXM)","publisher":"EUROCONTROL","url":"https://www.eurocontrol.int/model/flight-information-exchange-model","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FIXM already supplies harmonized flight-information data structures, including richer route and trajectory descriptions.","FAA, EUROCONTROL, and other organizations jointly govern FIXM evolution.","FIXM is a close schema-standardization rival but does not by itself establish representation-independent predictor behavior."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"EUROCONTROL Specification for SWIM Service Definition, Edition 1.0","publisher":"EUROCONTROL","url":"https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/euroconrol-specification-swim-service-definition.pdf","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2024-04-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["SWIM service definitions already harmonize implementations across multiple service providers while permitting technology choices to remain implementation-specific.","The specification includes conformance assessment, information semantics, quality, authorization, confidentiality, and integrity requirements.","The specification expressly excludes trajectory algorithms, providing close architectural prior art for hiding implementation while standardizing a service contract."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Air Traffic Organization Safety Management System Manual","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/ATO-SMS-Manual.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2022-12","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FAA requires safety-risk management to account for interactions among evolving NAS hardware, software, legacy tools, organizations, and procedures.","Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance provide the formal path for identifying hazards, treating risks, and determining whether controls perform as intended.","Software conformance evidence alone cannot authorize operational deployment."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Digital Information Platform Overview","publisher":"National Aeronautics and Space Administration","url":"https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/armd/aosp/atm-x/dip/dip-overview/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026-06-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NASA identifies segmentation by domain, operator, and solution provider as a current obstacle to system-wide aviation solutions.","NASA is actively partnering with operators, service providers, data integrators, platform providers, industry, and FAA on operational evaluations.","The program expressly seeks an interoperability framework for disparate services and includes digital trajectory management, demonstrating stakeholder pull for the broader problem."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"National Employment and Wage Data by Occupation, May 2025","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2026-06","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The May 2025 mean annual wage was $148,100 for software developers and $111,490 for software quality-assurance analysts and testers.","These wages provide a public labor-cost anchor for resource-equivalent estimates; loaded contractor, infrastructure, safety, and program costs remain assumptions."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Trajectory prediction demonstrably drives an operational conflict tool, and published research directly documents heterogeneous predictor assumptions, models, and outputs as an interoperability problem. However, no opened source establishes the proposal's narrower prevalence assertion that current client modules inspect predictor-owned arrays, cadence, covariance layouts, or undocumented errors. That representation leakage remains a field-audit hypothesis rather than verified fact.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S7"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"FAA is an identifiable operator and safety authorizer pursuing TBO, while NASA, FAA, airlines, and service providers are actively evaluating interoperable digital trajectory services. This is strong pull for trajectory interoperability, but no source records an adopter requesting this exact opaque containment-query abstraction or committing budget and authority to it.","source_ids":["S1","S6","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"NASA trajectory-predictor capability abstraction and interoperability comparison","similarity":"Directly abstracts and compares disparate trajectory predictors and evaluates whether shared intent, behavior models, or four-dimensional trajectories can support interoperability.","remaining_difference":"The proposal adds an opaque time-indexed containment object, explicit invariants and error laws, representation-leakage controls, and one executable seeded-defect conformance gate rather than primarily comparing capabilities and shared trajectory artifacts.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"EUROCONTROL SWIM Service Definition","similarity":"Defines implementation-conformant, semantically specified services across providers while allowing internal technology and trajectory algorithms to vary; it also covers quality, security, and conformity assessment.","remaining_difference":"It is a general service-definition standard, not a predictor-specific abstract data type with containment semantics, state laws, transformation properties, and conflict-query equivalence tests.","source_ids":["S5"]},{"name":"FIXM trajectory data model","similarity":"Provides a jointly governed, harmonized schema for exchanging richer route and trajectory information.","remaining_difference":"It standardizes exchanged data structures rather than proving behavioral substitutability among sampled, spline, set-based, or probabilistic predictor implementations.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"NASA Digital Information Platform interoperability framework","similarity":"Uses standards and protocols to connect disparate aviation services and is evaluating digital trajectory management with operational stakeholders.","remaining_difference":"The public description does not specify an opaque predicted-volume abstraction or a common black-box behavioral oracle.","source_ids":["S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"For one non-operational conflict-query client, an opaque time-indexed containment contract plus a representation-independent, seeded-defect conformance suite will classify compatibility more accurately than either a FIXM-like canonical trajectory schema or incumbent pointwise regression: it will reject deliberately nonconforming implementations while accepting independently implemented sampled and set-based predictors that agree at the declared containment-and-error level despite different internal representations.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"FIXM, SWIM service definitions, NASA interoperability work, and existing trajectory-dependent tools show that schemas, implementation-independent service contracts, conformance assessment, replay environments, and cross-provider governance are technically and institutionally credible. The candidate nevertheless lacks evidence that its proposed containment semantics preserve all operational distinctions, that suitable replay data and client code can be accessed lawfully, or that a practical suite can separate valid alternatives from dangerous ones without encoding incumbent behavior. Offline synthetic testing avoids immediate operational risk; any deployment would require FAA ATO safety-risk management and assurance.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Conflict-probe behavior is operationally consequential, and avoiding silent semantic changes could materially improve assurance and maintainability; realized safety or efficiency impact is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S2","S6"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"FAA and NASA visibly pursue TBO and interoperable digital trajectory services, but exact demand for the proposed contract is not documented.","source_ids":["S1","S7"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The containment-level oracle could avoid both concrete-schema lock-in and pointwise overfitting, but no comparative results yet show better classification than the rivals.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The domain-specific containment abstraction is contrastive, but implementation-independent service contracts, trajectory-predictor abstraction, semantic standardization, and conformance assessment are already established nearby.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Opaque interfaces, replay harnesses, semantic service definitions, and conformance checks are conventional software-engineering capabilities; the difficult part is specifying correct uncertainty and tolerance semantics.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"FAA ATO supplies an identifiable operational authority and formal safety-management path, but cross-team governance, contractor ownership, data access, and assurance classification are unresolved.","source_ids":["S1","S6"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Public evidence supports the broad problem and close prior art, but the causal leakage claim and comparative benefit require proprietary code inspection, replay data, and live execution of a test harness.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"An offline, read-only gate with seeded defects and unchanged production systems is reversible and could expose semantic divergence before operational integration; passage must not be treated as safety approval.","source_ids":["S6"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A shared contract and suite could be reused across predictors and clients, but differing operational interpretations of uncertainty, tolerances, and diagnostics may require substantial local profiles.","source_ids":["S3","S5"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Six-to-ten-week study for one client, incumbent wrapper, simple independent set-based implementation, 100-500 approved replay or synthetic scenarios, 12 seeded defects, leakage inventory, and pre-registered comparison report.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 0.5-1.0 combined engineer-year across trajectory, software-test, and safety personnel.","Public wages are converted to resource-equivalent cost using a 1.5-2.2 loading factor for benefits, overhead, management, and computing.","Existing non-operational test infrastructure and synthetic data are available."],"source_ids":["S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production-quality contract tooling and wrappers for a bounded subsystem, controlled data pipeline, traceability, security review, multi-client regression, and initial safety-analysis artifacts; excludes operational cutover.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Two-to-five loaded full-time-equivalent years plus specialized assurance and integration effort.","No major replacement of legacy surveillance, flight-plan, or controller-display infrastructure.","Access to incumbent interfaces can be negotiated without extensive vendor redevelopment."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Operational integration for one facility or program increment, formal safety-risk management, verification and validation, human-factors and contingency review, training, monitoring, rollback, contractor coordination, and staged authorization.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The offline abstraction survives the first study without redesign.","Launch remains a bounded program increment rather than NAS-wide deployment.","FAA-required safety and change-control work dominates the cost beyond core coding."],"source_ids":["S2","S6","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Contract stewardship, suite maintenance, regression execution, data governance, security updates, implementation qualification, discrepancy triage, and periodic safety-assurance support for a bounded deployed service.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One-to-four loaded full-time-equivalent years annually across engineering, QA, safety, and governance.","Major version migrations and new facility deployments are excluded.","Replay infrastructure is shared with an existing program."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Operational conflict tools depend on predicted trajectories, and primary research documents material differences among trajectory predictors that obstruct interoperability. The specific prevalence of representation-reaching clients is not yet verified.","source_ids":["S2","S3"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"FAA is the identifiable operator and safety authorizer, and NASA documents active trajectory-interoperability evaluations with FAA, airlines, and service providers.","source_ids":["S1","S6","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be compared prospectively against a canonical trajectory schema and incumbent pointwise regression by measuring acceptance of two legitimate heterogeneous implementations and rejection of seeded semantic defects.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"One client, a finite scenario corpus, two legitimate implementations, three comparators, 12 seeded defects, pre-registered thresholds, and an isolated replay environment form a bounded experiment.","source_ids":["S3","S6","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the next evidence step only, synthetic or approved replay data, read-only execution, no controller display or operational output, and unchanged production systems bound the risk. Operational adoption remains subject to FAA ATO Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance.","source_ids":["S6"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four ranges specify bounded scopes and are anchored to current public software-development and QA wages with explicit loading, staffing, infrastructure, and assurance assumptions; launch and recurring estimates remain low-confidence.","source_ids":["S6","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"With an FAA/NASA or equivalent ATM-system partner, pre-register a six-to-ten-week isolated replay experiment for one non-operational conflict-query client and 100-500 approved or synthetic cases spanning nominal, stale, invalid, interval-boundary, coordinate-transformed, and uncertainty-edge conditions. Compare (A) the incumbent exposed trajectory object and pointwise regression, (B) a FIXM-like canonical sampled-schema adapter, and (C) the proposed opaque containment contract. Run C against the wrapped incumbent, an independently coded simple set-based predictor, and 12 deliberately broken variants covering stale-state acceptance, zeroed uncertainty, frame/time errors, boundary tolerance, mutation, ordering leakage, and error collapse. Primary endpoints are client dependencies requiring representation access, contract-level divergence between legitimate implementations, seeded-defect detection, false rejection, latency, and triageability. Pre-register failure as any missed safety-relevant seeded defect, more than two missed defects overall, rejection of either legitimate implementation solely because of representation, or a client requirement that cannot be expressed without exposing concrete trajectory internals. Stop and retain the baseline if the wrapper changes incumbent replay outputs, traceability fails, restricted data cross an approved boundary, or divergences cannot be classified without operational interpretation.","blocking_evidence":["No public source verifies that current conflict-tool clients actually inspect undocumented waypoint, covariance, cadence, ordering, or error representations.","No adopter has publicly requested, funded, or accepted the proposed opaque containment contract.","The semantic adequacy of a single containment relation across probabilistic, bounded-error, and intent-based predictions is untested.","Access to incumbent client code, predictor implementations, representative replay data, and independent subject-matter adjudication is unconfirmed.","No comparative evidence shows that the proposed oracle outperforms FIXM-like schema standardization or incumbent pointwise regression.","Numerical tolerances, uncertainty interpretation, degraded-state rules, latency limits, data rights, security controls, and operational assurance classification remain unset."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes substantial adjacent and overlapping practice, including trajectory-predictor capability abstraction, harmonized trajectory schemas, implementation-independent SWIM service definitions, and conformity assessment. It does not measure world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact, and it does not establish whether an opaque time-indexed predicted-volume contract with this exact oracle has or has not been implemented elsewhere.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Secure an authorized partner and lawful access to one bounded client, incumbent predictor, and replay or synthetic corpus.","Complete a dependency inventory quantifying representation-reaching client behavior.","Pre-register the abstract semantics, uncertainty interpretation, tolerances, comparators, seeded defects, and pass/fail thresholds before comparative execution.","Demonstrate that the suite accepts two independently implemented legitimate representations while rejecting all safety-relevant seeded defects.","Quantify false acceptance, false rejection, semantic divergence, latency, resource use, and triageability against pointwise-regression and canonical-schema comparators.","Obtain written safety-authority review confirming what additional evidence would be required before any operational trial."],"reason":"Bounded web research verifies a consequential trajectory-interoperability problem, credible authorities, feasible enabling practices, substantial prior-art overlap, and a distinct comparative experiment. It cannot answer the central incremental claim because that requires proprietary dependency inspection, controlled replay data, independently implemented predictors, and execution of the conformance oracle. Under the controller rule, those field and live-test requirements mandate an empirical-research stop."},"proposal_index":1}