{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__aviation_aeronautics:P2:v0","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__aviation_aeronautics","search_queries":["site:ntrs.nasa.gov DAVE-ML aerodynamic models tables interpolation simulation standard","aerodynamic model data standard interchangeable simulation table interpolation DAVE-ML","Functional Mock-up Interface aerospace aerodynamic model exchange conformance testing standard","FAA flight simulation aerodynamic model validation data interpolation","site:ntrs.nasa.gov DAVE-ML model exchange verification interpolation extrapolation tables validation","site:ntrs.nasa.gov \"DAVE-ML\" \"aerodynamic\" \"simulation facilities\"","site:daveml.org verification tool DAVE-ML model validation compare","AIAA S-119A-2023 flight dynamics model exchange standard scope DAVE-ML","NASA 20110014644 Assessment Draft AIAA S-119 Flight Dynamics Model Exchange Standard landing page","NASA Technical Reports Server 20110014644 assessment S-119","site:bls.gov OEWS software developers aerospace engineers wages May 2025","FAA 14 CFR Part 60 flight simulation training device aerodynamic validation official","site:fmi-standard.org validation conformance test suite FMI official","site:modelica.org FMI cross-check rules conformance official","FMI standard validation tools compliance checker official","site:fmi-standard.org docs 3.0 interface black box variables units dependencies"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"DAVE-ML 2: Purpose","publisher":"DAVE-ML Project","url":"https://daveml.org/DTDs/prod/Ref/purpose.html","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2011-03-31","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Vendor-specific, incomplete, or inconsistent flight-simulation packages and mismatched assumptions can make model rehosting take weeks and create result differences.","DAVE-ML provides a programming-language-independent exchange representation for aerodynamic models, equations, tables, documentation, and check cases.","DAVE-ML is the encoding portion of ANSI/AIAA S-119-2011."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Flight Dynamics Model Exchange Standard","publisher":"NASA Technical Standards System","url":"https://standards.nasa.gov/standard/NASA/AIAA-S-119","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2016-04-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Active, NASA-endorsed AIAA S-119 already standardizes exchange of air-vehicle simulations and validation data without requiring facilities to replace internal formats.","The standard specifies coordinate systems, units, sign conventions, provenance, self-validation, self-documentation, and optional statistical quality information.","NASA endorsement does not make the standard mandatory."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Assessment of the Draft AIAA S-119 Flight Dynamic Model Exchange Standard","publisher":"NASA Technical Reports Server","url":"https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20110014644","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2011-08-08","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A NASA Engineering and Safety Center team tested S-119 import into real-time and analysis frameworks at multiple NASA centers.","All participants successfully imported two example models; libraries and documentation defects were identified, and library performance compared favorably with compiled code.","Several NASA centers became able to import standard models, demonstrating an identifiable adopter and technical feasibility."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"DAVEtools 0.9.7 README","publisher":"DAVE-ML Project / NASA Langley Research Center","url":"https://daveml.org/DAVEtools/index.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2015-03-02","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Open-source tooling already parses and evaluates DAVE-ML models, runs embedded verification cases, and exposes input/output operations.","The tooling converts models into Simulink with validation scripts and supports response-surface inspection.","Schema validation alone may be absent when required DTD resources are unavailable, illustrating implementation-governance limits."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Functional Mock-up Interface","publisher":"Modelica Association Project FMI","url":"https://fmi-standard.org/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FMI already defines a container and tool-neutral interface for exchanging executable dynamic models and reports support by more than 280 tools.","Reference FMUs are available for implementation, testing, and debugging.","Saab publicly identifies aircraft-development model interoperability, reuse, and tool-neutral integration as challenges and describes FMI as an enabler."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Validate Your FMUs","publisher":"Modelica Association Project FMI","url":"https://fmi-standard.org/validation/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Multiple free tools provide static, schema, simulation, and formal-model validation for FMUs.","The FMI project recommends multiple validators because each checks different aspects of compliance.","Reference FMUs support testing of importer behavior, but generic FMI compliance is not an aerodynamic semantic-equivalence oracle."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"National Simulator Program","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FAA's National Simulator Program establishes and applies Part 60 qualification standards for regulated flight-simulation training devices.","Part 60 governs initial and continuing qualification and use, while the sponsor's quality-management system maintains continued performance and oversight.","Experimental software conformance cannot by itself authorize use in a regulated training device."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Occupational Employment and Wages — May 2025","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.htm","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2026-05-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["May 2025 mean annual wages were $142,060 for aerospace engineers and $148,100 for software developers.","The wage estimates exclude employer supplementary-benefit costs, so loaded resource-equivalent estimates require an overhead assumption."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"S1 directly documents vendor-specific, incomplete, inconsistent packages, incompatible facility assumptions, long rehosting effort, and result discrepancies; S3 confirms independently developed, partly incompatible NASA frameworks. This establishes the broader model-exchange problem and its importance. No public source verifies the candidate's narrower present-day prevalence claim that clients in a particular aircraft program directly index coefficient arrays, reconstruct grids, or rely on undocumented sentinels.","source_ids":["S1","S3"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"NASA funded and conducted a multi-center assessment, achieved working imports, and endorsed AIAA S-119; Saab separately expresses an aircraft-development need for model interoperability, reuse, and tool-neutral integration. FAA supplies an identifiable downstream authorizer for regulated training-device uses. No aircraft program has publicly committed to the candidate's specific interface profile.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"ANSI/AIAA S-119 with DAVE-ML","similarity":"Aviation-specific standard for facility-independent exchange of aerodynamic and other flight-dynamics models, including equations, tables, axes, units, sign conventions, provenance, uncertainty information, validation data, and tolerances.","remaining_difference":"It primarily standardizes an exchange representation. The candidate adds an explicitly opaque query component, prospective semantic substitutability rule across table and non-table encodings, invalid-domain/no-silent-extrapolation semantics, metamorphic transformation laws, property generation, and representation-leakage auditing.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},{"name":"NASA S-119 implementation assessment and DAVEtools","similarity":"Demonstrated imports into multiple distinct simulation frameworks, executable evaluation, embedded check cases, generated validation scripts, and performance suitable for real-time frameworks.","remaining_difference":"The public evidence does not demonstrate the candidate's full seeded-fault, property-based, metamorphic, alternate-surrogate, or leakage-audit acceptance protocol.","source_ids":["S3","S4"]},{"name":"Functional Mock-up Interface and validation ecosystem","similarity":"Widely implemented, tool-neutral container and executable interface with reference models plus static, simulation, schema, and formal validators.","remaining_difference":"FMI is domain-general and does not itself define aerodynamic axes, reference-point transformations, supported-domain validity, physical-model provenance, or numerical equivalence between encodings of one approved aerodynamic response field.","source_ids":["S5","S6"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Relative to S-119/DAVE-ML and generic FMI, the remaining falsifiable claim is that an aviation-specific semantic query profile—prospectively fixing supported-domain status, no-silent-extrapolation behavior, axes/reference transformations, equivalence tolerances, and leakage rules—will admit at least one behaviorally equivalent non-table encoding without consumer changes while rejecting seeded dimension-order, clamping, reference-shift, state-retention, and tolerance defects that existing schema and check-case validation do not reject.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"NASA successfully imported example S-119 models into multiple real-time and analysis frameworks, found acceptable library performance, and produced tools; DAVEtools already evaluates models and runs check cases. FMI supplies mature executable-interface and validator infrastructure. These establish technical feasibility, but not conformance of an alternate representation to proprietary aircraft data or fitness for safety-regulated use.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Flight-dynamics models affect design, controls analysis, simulation, and potentially regulated training; discrepancies and prolonged rehosting are documented. Magnitude for the candidate's target aircraft program is unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S7"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"NASA invested in and adopted exchange capability across centers, and Saab explicitly describes aircraft-model interoperability and reuse as challenges. Pull for this exact contract profile is not established.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"The semantic-query and leakage-testing profile could improve on exchange-schema validation, but S-119/DAVE-ML and FMI already cover most of the intervention's exchange, abstraction, validation, provenance, and tooling foundations.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5","S6"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The precise combination of aerodynamic validity semantics, metamorphic laws, prospective tolerances, and leakage tests is plausibly differentiable as an implementation profile, not as a new general solution class.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":5,"rationale":"Multi-center NASA demonstrations, open DAVEtools, FMI reference implementations, and several validation approaches make a bounded offline implementation highly credible.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"NASA centers, aircraft-program engineering authorities, and FAA simulator qualification roles are identifiable. Actual proprietary aerodynamic-data authority and certification acceptance must be obtained program by program.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"Standards, open tools, check cases, reference models, and clear seeded falsifiers permit a bounded test. The decisive consumer audit and approved aerodynamic dataset will usually be proprietary.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"A non-flight-release, read-only wrapper and shadow comparison can be reversed while preserving the authoritative dataset. The safety benefit is prospective; conformance must not be confused with physical fidelity or airworthiness.","source_ids":["S4","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Standards-based interfaces and reusable validators scale across tools and facilities, as shown by NASA and FMI adoption. Each aircraft model still requires domain definitions, tolerances, provenance, and authority review.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S6"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Eight-to-twelve-week offline standards-gap and conformance study for one non-flight-release aerodynamic-model version, one bounded consumer, the incumbent evaluator, one simple independent evaluator, one alternate encoding, and seeded faults.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 0.3-0.8 combined FTE-years across aerospace, software, and assurance roles.","Loaded labor is estimated at 1.5-2.0 times BLS mean wages to cover benefits, facilities, tooling, and program overhead.","Authoritative data and an incumbent evaluator are already available; no wind-tunnel, flight-test, certification, or new hardware expense is included."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production-quality contract, adapters, test harness, provenance/version controls, developer documentation, and integration for one aircraft program and a small set of offline analysis consumers.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Approximately 2-4 loaded FTE-years.","Existing S-119/DAVE-ML or FMI components are reused where suitable.","Excludes regulated simulator qualification and flight-software assurance."],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Multi-consumer program launch including data-authority review, independent verification, migration tooling, performance qualification, configuration management, training, and controlled release across offline and real-time engineering environments.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 6-15 loaded FTE-years plus program tooling and assurance.","Scope is one aircraft program, not industry-wide standardization.","Any FAA-qualified training-device modification or flight-control use would require separate approval and could exceed this band."],"source_ids":["S3","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Stewardship for model revisions, conformance-suite maintenance, consumer support, defect triage, provenance/configuration audits, and periodic assurance reviews within one program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Approximately 1.5-4 loaded FTE-years annually.","Revision volume is moderate and no new aerodynamic-data acquisition is included.","Regulated training-device surveillance remains outside this software-contract budget."],"source_ids":["S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Independent NASA and DAVE-ML evidence documents incompatible facility representations, incomplete packages, long rehosting, and result discrepancies, although exact current prevalence in the target program is unknown.","source_ids":["S1","S3"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"NASA centers are demonstrated adopters of S-119-compatible exchange, Saab expresses related aircraft-model interoperability need, and FAA is an identifiable downstream training-device authorizer.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim compares a semantic aerodynamic profile against S-119/DAVE-ML and FMI using alternate encodings, unchanged clients, and prospectively seeded faults.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"One model version, one consumer, three legitimate evaluators/encodings, specified seeded defects, prospective tolerances, and explicit pass/fail criteria form a bounded offline test.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first test can remain read-only, offline, non-flight-release, and reversible. Flight software, certified simulators, structural clearance, or operational use remain excluded pending their respective authorities.","source_ids":["S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four ranges are scoped as resource equivalents and anchored to current government wage data with explicit loaded-labor, reuse, and exclusion assumptions; launch and recurring estimates remain low-confidence.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Run an 8-12 week standards-gap conformance exercise on one non-flight-release model and one offline consumer. Before execution, freeze the abstract inputs/outputs, units, axes, reference geometry, supported-domain and error rules, no-extrapolation rule, and numerical tolerances. Compare (A) the incumbent evaluator, (B) an S-119/DAVE-ML or FMI-wrapped simple evaluator of the authoritative data, and (C) one sparse, fitted, or surrogate encoding. Test fixed release cases, generated interior/boundary/invalid inputs, batch-versus-single behavior, axis round trips, moment-reference shifts, repeatability, and resource ceilings. Seed dimension swaps, silent clamping, incorrect reference shifts, stale state, and tolerance violations. Success requires both legitimate alternatives to preserve contract-level behavior without consumer changes and every seeded defect to be rejected. Falsify the incremental claim if existing S-119/DAVE-ML or FMI profiles already satisfy every criterion without extension, if a legitimate alternate encoding cannot pass prospectively justified tolerances, if any seeded defect passes, or if the consumer audit finds no representation-specific dependency.","blocking_evidence":["No public dependency audit establishes the prevalence of direct table, grid, sentinel, interpolation, or reference-geometry coupling in the target aircraft program.","No prospective comparative trial shows that the proposed profile outperforms an S-119/DAVE-ML implementation or an aerodynamic FMI profile.","No aircraft-program aerodynamic-data authority has publicly accepted the proposed abstract state, transformation laws, or numerical tolerances.","Proprietary-data access, export-control constraints, tool qualification, and integration effort are program-specific and unverified.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact, and physical fidelity to an aircraft remain unmeasured."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"The search establishes substantial, aviation-specific prior practice in AIAA S-119/DAVE-ML and adjacent executable-interface practice in FMI. It does not establish whether the candidate's exact combination of semantic validity rules, metamorphic aerodynamic laws, alternate-encoding tolerance criteria, and leakage auditing has appeared previously. World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not measured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_DIFFUSION","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Reframe the work as an aircraft-program implementation profile or extension of AIAA S-119/DAVE-ML and FMI, not as a new general interface-contract invention.","Produce a clause-level crosswalk showing which proposed operations, validity semantics, tolerances, provenance fields, and tests are already supplied by S-119/DAVE-ML or FMI and which require a local profile.","If an organization has a real adoption gap, obtain written aerodynamic-data-authority ownership of model meaning and tolerances before running the bounded offline conformance exercise.","Treat any later regulated simulator, flight-control, structural-clearance, or airworthiness use as a separately authorized assurance project."],"reason":"The problem is real, stakeholders and authorizers are identifiable, implementation is feasible, and a bounded test exists. However, an active NASA-endorsed aviation standard, successful multi-center implementations, open verification tooling, and the mature FMI ecosystem substantially embody the proposed solution. The appropriate path is known-practice diffusion and a local standards profile rather than continued novelty-oriented development."},"proposal_index":2}