{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__aviation_aeronautics","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"ripc-aviation-aerodynamic-response-contract-002","proposal_index":2,"version":0,"title":"Representation-Independent Aerodynamic Response Model for Simulation and Control-Law Analysis","problem":"An aircraft program releases an approved aerodynamic dataset for use by flight simulators, loads analyses, and control-law studies. The dataset is exposed as coefficient tables, grid axes, interpolation helpers, and sentinel values. Clients consequently depend on table dimension order, breakpoint placement, interpolation procedure, extrapolation behavior, coefficient naming, and internal reference geometry. Re-encoding the same approved aerodynamic response as a sparse table, fitted surface, reduced-order model, or real-time surrogate can therefore change downstream behavior or require client rewrites even when the alternative is intended only as a different representation of the same released model. The program lacks an implementation-independent definition of what it means for two encodings to realize the same aerodynamic response model.","actors":["Aerodynamics data owners","Flight-dynamics and simulation engineers","Flight-control-law analysts","Structural-loads analysts","Model-integration and software teams","Aircraft program chief engineer and applicable assurance reviewers"],"observable_state":"In a bounded repository and replay audit, the condition is observable if clients index coefficient arrays directly, reconstruct grid coordinates, perform their own interpolation or extrapolation, interpret undocumented sentinel values, assume coefficient ordering, or apply unrecorded axis and reference-point conversions. It is also observable if two nominally equivalent encodings produce different validity classifications, force or moment coefficients, or boundary behavior when queried at the same declared flight condition and configuration.","consequence":"A representation change can alter simulated forces, moments, stability derivatives, trim solutions, predicted loads, or control-law analysis results without being identified as a contract change. Conversely, tests tied to exact table cells can reject a behaviorally acceptable compressed or real-time implementation merely because its internal representation differs. Either outcome obscures whether a discrepancy concerns aircraft-model meaning or only storage and computation.","affected_objective":"Make approved aerodynamic-model meaning portable and auditable across offline, real-time, and reduced-order implementations while preserving explicit limits on validity and numerical equivalence.","intervention":"Create an opaque AerodynamicResponseModel component whose abstract value is a versioned partial mapping from a declared aircraft configuration and nondimensional flight condition to force and moment coefficients, validity status, declared uncertainty or tolerance metadata, and sanctioned provenance identifiers. Public operations expose the supported domain, evaluate one or more conditions, transform a response between declared axis systems or reference points, compare model revisions, and obtain limited diagnostics. Preconditions define units, normalization, coordinate frames, configuration identity, and admissible inputs. Postconditions define output frames, reference geometry, validity, numerical equivalence tolerances, errors, immutability, and side-effect limits. Silent extrapolation is forbidden unless a named model version explicitly contracts for it. Dense tables, sparse grids, interpolation trees, polynomials, neural surrogates, caches, and coefficient storage layouts remain hidden. Each encoding supplies a representation invariant and semantic mapping to the approved abstract response field and must pass one black-box conformance oracle before it is eligible to replace another encoding. This contract governs alternate representations of one released aerodynamic model; it does not declare physically different source models equivalent.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Abstract behavioral surface","domain_realization":"Operations include supported_domain, evaluate, evaluate_batch, transform_axes, shift_moment_reference, revision_relation, and sanctioned diagnostic_summary over an opaque aerodynamic-model handle."},{"archetype_element":"Hidden representation","domain_realization":"Coefficient-table shapes, breakpoint grids, interpolation algorithms, sparse indices, fitted bases, surrogate weights, caches, and internal precision are non-contractual."},{"archetype_element":"Abstract state model","domain_realization":"A model version denotes an immutable partial response mapping indexed by aircraft configuration, Mach number, angle variables, normalized rates, control deflections, and any other explicitly declared dimensions, with outputs expressed against declared axes and reference geometry."},{"archetype_element":"Representation invariant and semantic mapping","domain_realization":"Every valid concrete encoding must have complete metadata, a noncontradictory supported domain, finite outputs for valid inputs, explicit invalid regions, and one mapping from its internal state to the versioned abstract response field within prospectively specified equivalence tolerances."},{"archetype_element":"Behavioral laws and invariants","domain_realization":"Repeated evaluation of an immutable version is observationally stable; batch evaluation equals corresponding single evaluations; axis transformation followed by its inverse recovers the contract-level response within tolerance; shifting a moment reference follows the declared force-moment relation; invalid or unsupported inputs never silently yield a valid response; and configured symmetry relations apply only when explicitly included in that model version."},{"archetype_element":"Error and side-effect semantics","domain_realization":"The contract distinguishes malformed condition, unsupported configuration, outside-domain query, unavailable model, tolerance failure, and internal evaluation failure. Failed queries do not mutate the model, alter later results, or silently clamp inputs."},{"archetype_element":"Conformance oracle","domain_realization":"One implementation-parameterized suite checks fixed release cases, generated interior and boundary conditions, operation sequences, coordinate and reference transformations, batched-query laws, error behavior, and seeded representation defects without inspecting internals."},{"archetype_element":"Substitutability rule","domain_realization":"An encoding is eligible as a substitute for a named aerodynamic-model version only when it realizes the same abstract mapping within prespecified tolerances, passes all semantic and leakage checks, and satisfies separately declared resource constraints for its intended analysis environment."},{"archetype_element":"Stewardship and versioning","domain_realization":"Aerodynamic data owners approve semantic model revisions; software owners may change hidden encodings when conformance is preserved. Changes to supported domain, tolerances, normalization, axes, reference geometry, or response meaning require a new reviewed contract version."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"abstract_data_type_specification","role":"Defines the aerodynamic model as a partial response mapping independent of tables or fitted surfaces, then requires an invariant and abstraction function for every concrete encoding.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the abstract mapping and representation proof obligations, the proposal would merely wrap existing tables and could not distinguish semantic equivalence from similar-looking output."},{"mechanism_slug":"opaque_type_or_module_boundary","role":"Gives clients only a model handle and declared operations, preventing direct access to coefficient arrays, grids, surrogate parameters, or caches.","counterfactual_removal":"Clients could continue performing representation-specific indexing and interpolation, recreating the coupling that blocks substitution."},{"mechanism_slug":"design_by_contract_clause","role":"Fixes per-operation obligations for units, normalization, axes, reference geometry, supported domains, extrapolation, tolerances, errors, and immutability.","counterfactual_removal":"Implementations with identical signatures could still disagree on boundary handling or physical conventions, making substitution unsafe and discrepancies difficult to allocate."},{"mechanism_slug":"black_box_contract_test_suite","role":"Applies one public-surface-only acceptance battery to dense, sparse, fitted, and real-time encodings of the same model version.","counterfactual_removal":"Each encoding would be judged by representation-specific regression tests, leaving no shared behavioral substitution criterion."},{"mechanism_slug":"property_based_conformance_test","role":"Generates valid and invalid flight conditions, boundary cases, and operation sequences to exercise invariants and universal relations across the supported domain.","counterfactual_removal":"A finite collection of release points could miss discontinuities, clamping, state contamination, and dimension-order defects between selected cases."},{"mechanism_slug":"metamorphic_behavior_test","role":"Checks batch-versus-single equivalence, axis-transform round trips, moment-reference shifts, and explicitly contracted symmetry relations without requiring an independently known coefficient value for every generated condition.","counterfactual_removal":"Many representation-independent physical and algebraic obligations would remain unchecked wherever no pointwise oracle had been authored."},{"mechanism_slug":"reference_implementation_differential_test","role":"Uses a deliberately simple, frozen evaluator of the approved release dataset as one bounded oracle, comparing only contract-level responses within prespecified tolerances.","counterfactual_removal":"The suite would lose a direct check for exact release semantics in corners not fully characterized by algebraic laws; laws alone could admit a consistently biased encoding."},{"mechanism_slug":"representation_leakage_probe","role":"Audits observable ordering, floating-point patterns, latency classes, diagnostic fields, error wording, and provenance identifiers, sealing or formally sanctioning anything clients could depend upon.","counterfactual_removal":"An opaque handle could still leak enough incidental behavior for clients to infer the underlying table or surrogate and become coupled to it."},{"mechanism_slug":"semantic_versioning_and_deprecation_gate","role":"Classifies changes to domain, axes, normalization, tolerances, errors, and response meaning and separates them from conforming internal re-encodings.","counterfactual_removal":"A semantic aerodynamic-model revision could be shipped as an implementation optimization, or a private encoding change could trigger unnecessary client migration."}],"causal_chain":["Clients receive an approved aerodynamic dataset primarily through its concrete coefficient-table representation.","They embed table order, grid breakpoints, interpolation, extrapolation, sentinel, axis, and reference-geometry assumptions in their own analyses.","A compressed, accelerated, or otherwise re-encoded implementation changes one or more incidental observables even though it is intended to denote the same released aerodynamic model.","Downstream simulation, trim, loads, or control-law results then change—or representation-shaped tests fail—without a common way to separate semantic change from storage change.","The intervention defines the model as an opaque partial response mapping with explicit operations, invariants, tolerances, errors, frames, and transformation laws.","Each encoding maps its valid internal states to that abstract value and is judged by the same black-box, property, metamorphic, differential, and leakage checks.","Conforming re-encodings can then be evaluated as implementation substitutions, while changes to aerodynamic meaning become explicit versioned model revisions requiring engineering authority."],"baseline":"Continue distributing coefficient files, interpolation utilities, and integration notes. Each consumer loads or translates the files, applies local boundary and conversion logic, and validates changes with its own pointwise or end-to-end regression tests.","nearest_rivals":["Mandate one canonical coefficient-table file format. This standardizes storage but freezes a grid representation and does not fully specify interpolation, extrapolation, errors, transformations, or operation-sequence behavior.","Provide a shared interpolation library. This centralizes one algorithm but still exposes table layout and does not permit a non-table implementation without translating it back into the incumbent representation.","Freeze the existing evaluator and prohibit reimplementation. This avoids immediate substitution questions but ties every client environment and performance profile to one implementation and leaves its accidental behavior implicit.","Wrap each alternative encoding with an adapter returning the incumbent arrays. This preserves current clients by reconstructing the leaked representation rather than defining the aerodynamic model independently of it.","Use only pointwise golden-data comparison against the incumbent. This can catch numerical differences but may canonize implementation artifacts, omit relational laws and error semantics, and reject results that are equivalent under an approved tolerance or coordinate transformation.","Validate only downstream simulator or control-law outputs. This tests integrated consequences but makes an aerodynamic-interface discrepancy difficult to localize and can allow compensating errors to conceal nonconformance."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's contrastive, testable claim is that treating one released aerodynamic dataset as an opaque, versioned partial response mapping can separate changes in aerodynamic meaning from changes in table, fit, or surrogate representation more directly than storage standardization, shared interpolation, adapters, or downstream-only regression. It does not claim that different physical aerodynamic models are interchangeable.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The aircraft program's designated aerodynamic-data authority and chief engineer decide whether the abstract model and tolerances faithfully represent a released dataset. Applicable simulation, loads, controls, safety, and certification authorities retain approval over downstream use; software conformance alone grants no airworthiness or flight-release authority.","authorized_first_step":"In an isolated analysis environment, inventory one bounded set of consumers and encode a test-only contract around a non-flight-release aerodynamic model version. Compare the incumbent evaluator with one independently implemented simple evaluator and one alternate representation using recorded release cases plus synthetic queries.","excluded_actions":["No change to flight-control software, aircraft configuration data, certified training devices, or operational flight systems","No use of an experimental encoding for piloted flight, hardware command, control-law release, structural clearance, or airworthiness findings","No replacement or deletion of the authoritative aerodynamic source dataset","No silent widening of the supported domain or introduction of extrapolation","No inference that contract conformance establishes physical fidelity to the aircraft","No relaxation of existing data-access, export-control, or program-protection rules"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if the wrapper changes incumbent outputs, loses provenance, conflates physically different model versions, hides invalid-domain status, requires uncontrolled source data, or cannot express an analysis-critical convention without exposing representation. Roll back by removing the test-only interface and alternate encodings; retain the authoritative dataset, incumbent evaluator, and existing downstream configurations unchanged."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A dependency audit shows that bounded consumers already access the aerodynamic model solely through a complete semantic query contract, never inspect storage, and remain unchanged under controlled variations of table order, grid density, interpolation implementation, and internal encoding that preserve declared results. This would negate the proposed coupling pathway.","problem_falsifier":"Every observed consumer assumption is already an explicit reviewed promise, and independently encoded implementations of the same released model agree on validity, errors, transformations, and response values within prospectively declared tolerances across discriminating interior, boundary, and invalid-domain queries.","intervention_falsifier":"The contract cannot admit both a known-valid table evaluator and a known-valid alternate encoding without either exposing their internal structures, erasing analysis-critical physical distinctions, or setting tolerances broad enough to admit seeded response defects. In that case the proposed abstraction is not a usable substitution boundary.","risks":["The abstract input space may omit a configuration, history, hysteresis, aeroelastic, or unsteady-flow state that is material to model meaning.","Equivalence tolerances may be too narrow for valid numerical encodings or too broad to detect consequential response errors.","A frozen reference evaluator may contain defects that become unintentionally canonized.","Metamorphic relations may be applied where symmetry or linear transformation assumptions do not hold.","Opaque access may impede diagnosis unless sanctioned provenance and diagnostics remain sufficient.","Generated queries may under-sample discontinuities and sparsely supported regions.","Real-time resource limits may be mistaken for aerodynamic semantics instead of being governed as separate deployment constraints.","Users may confuse equivalence to a released dataset with validation against flight physics." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Choose one non-flight-release aerodynamic-model version and one bounded consumer, such as an offline trim or simulation analysis. Before comparing implementations, write the abstract input and output spaces, supported-domain rules, normalization, axes, reference geometry, immutable state, error categories, transformation laws, and numerical acceptance tolerances. Implement the contract around the incumbent evaluator, an independent simple evaluator of the authoritative data, an alternate sparse or fitted encoding, and seeded faulty encodings that swap dimensions, clamp an unsupported input, corrupt a reference-point shift, or retain state between calls. Run fixed release cases, generated boundary and invalid queries, batch and transformation metamorphic checks, differential comparisons, and a representation-leakage audit. Record which seeded faults are rejected, which existing client dependencies cannot be expressed semantically, and whether each disagreement indicates an implementation defect, a contract gap, or a physically distinct model. The result is bounded software-model evidence only.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 addressed ground-based air-traffic conflict tools whose clients depended on the internal representation of a time-indexed predicted flight volume; its causal consequence concerned unstable or inconsistent conflict indications, and its intervention defined containment and intersection behavior for trajectory predictions. This proposal is independently adoptable within an aircraft development program and addresses consumers coupled to coefficient-table encodings of an already released aerodynamic response model. Its abstract state is a configuration-and-flight-condition response mapping rather than a future occupancy volume; its operations evaluate forces and moments and transform axes or reference points rather than test space-time intersection; its causal path runs from leaked grids and interpolation conventions to divergent simulation, loads, trim, or control-law analyses rather than to air-traffic advisories; and its bounded evidence uses aerodynamic release cases, physical transformation laws, and seeded table or surrogate defects rather than trajectory replays. It neither extends nor supplies a feature of Proposal 1.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Generated the second sealed complete proposal","Established material independence from sealed proposal 1"],"conceptual_changes":["Instantiated the archetype as an opaque aerodynamic-response model for alternate encodings of one approved dataset.","Separated representation substitution from equivalence among physically different aerodynamic models."],"operational_changes":["Restricted the initial evaluation to a non-flight-release offline analysis environment.","Added explicit authority boundaries for flight controls, structural clearance, training devices, and airworthiness decisions."],"evidence_changes":["Specified release-case, property-based, metamorphic, differential, leakage, and seeded-defect checks tailored to aerodynamic-model semantics."],"claim_changes":["Limited the contrastive claim to separating aerodynamic meaning from encoding changes.","Made no claim of novelty, prevalence, demand, operational benefit magnitude, or physical-model validity."]}}