{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__aviation_aeronautics","portfolio_valid":true,"proposal_assessments":[{"proposal_index":1,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it identifies predictor-representation leakage, defines an opaque space-time containment abstraction with laws, errors, hidden representation, conformance oracle, and substitution rule, and traces the mechanism to conflict-query consistency. Its air-traffic prediction problem and containment-query intervention are distinct from the other three."},{"proposal_index":2,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it replaces coefficient-table dependence with an opaque partial aerodynamic-response mapping, explicit physical conventions and transformation laws, representation mappings, and common conformance gates. It addresses engineering-model re-encoding rather than trajectory conflict, maintenance evidence, or automation modes."},{"proposal_index":3,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it defines a stateful evidence ledger through operations, transition invariants, conflict and supersession semantics, historical queries, hidden storage, and sequence-based conformance. Its maintenance-record migration pathway is materially different from the numerical and avionics-interface proposals."},{"proposal_index":4,"complete":true,"causally_faithful":true,"materially_distinct":true,"reason":"Complete and faithful: it maps private controller states to an opaque crew-observable mode state with request, authority, atomic-reversion, error, timing, leakage, and trace-conformance rules. Its annunciation-coherence problem and flight-guidance state-machine intervention are independently adoptable and distinct."}],"pairwise_assessments":[{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":2,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 prevents trajectory-representation leakage from changing air-traffic conflict queries through a time-indexed containment interface; proposal 2 prevents aerodynamic table and interpolation leakage from changing engineering analyses through a flight-condition-to-response mapping."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 governs substitutable future-flight-volume predictors and conflict intersections; proposal 3 governs maintenance evidence, configuration, corrections, and obligations through a stateful ledger whose backend migrations can alter status."},{"proposal_a":1,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 1 addresses predictor internals affecting conflict detection; proposal 4 addresses controller-private modes and event ordering affecting cockpit annunciation and automation-state interpretation."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":3,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 is an immutable numerical response-field contract for alternate aerodynamic encodings; proposal 3 is a state-transition contract for maintenance evidence, supersession, conflicts, and historical obligation queries."},{"proposal_a":2,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 2 separates aerodynamic meaning from grids, interpolation, and surrogate representations; proposal 4 separates crew-observable engagement and reversion semantics from private controller substates, bitfields, and scheduling."},{"proposal_a":3,"proposal_b":4,"same_problem":false,"same_intervention":false,"independent_opportunity":true,"key_difference":"Proposal 3 prevents storage and replay details from changing maintenance-obligation status; proposal 4 prevents private flight-guidance state decomposition from producing inconsistent mode annunciation, recording, and simulation behavior."}],"replacement_indices":[],"rationale":"All four proposals operationalize the archetype's full causal structure: a concrete representation leaks into clients, representation changes then cause behavioral divergence, and an opaque behavioral contract plus invariants, error semantics, conformance testing, leakage control, and substitution rules restores implementation freedom. Although they share the required archetype, they target four different affected systems and objectives—air-traffic prediction, aerodynamic-model evaluation, maintenance evidence accounting, and flight-guidance mode semantics—with different operations, state models, actors, evidence, consequences, and causal paths. Every pair therefore constitutes an independent opportunity."}