{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__criminology_forensic","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"tool_neutral_digital_artifact_corpus_v0","proposal_index":2,"version":0,"title":"Tool-Neutral Digital Artifact Corpus Contract","problem":"Digital-forensic review scripts and examiner workflows can depend on how a particular extraction tool stores and displays recovered artifacts: vendor-specific tree positions, internal identifiers, status flags, timestamp conversions, deduplication choices, and result ordering. When a parser, extraction engine, or backing store is replaced, matching fields or exports do not establish that artifact queries, provenance, qualifications, and retrieval operations retain the same meaning. The laboratory therefore lacks a representation-independent rule for accepting one artifact-corpus implementation as a behavioral substitute for another.","actors":["Digital-forensic examiners","Laboratory technical reviewers","Investigators receiving authorized artifact exports","Digital-forensic tool and adapter developers","Laboratory quality managers","Case-workflow and reporting-system maintainers"],"observable_state":"For the same fixed forensic image, two implementations or adapters can expose different answers about which artifacts satisfy a query, which source bytes support an artifact, whether timestamps are original or normalized, whether two entries are aliases, how deleted or partial material is qualified, and what happens when content cannot be retrieved. Clients may also treat undocumented traversal order, vendor categories, generated filenames, internal row identifiers, or error wording as meaningful.","consequence":"Replacing or combining extraction implementations can change which digital artifacts enter examiner views or downstream reports, detach an artifact from its stated provenance, suppress qualifications, or break review automation even when the underlying forensic image is unchanged. Reviewers can then receive different apparent artifact corpora because representation choices have become unofficial behavioral promises.","affected_objective":"Preserve defined artifact-retrieval, provenance, qualification, and query semantics across changes in digital-forensic extraction or storage implementation while retaining the original source material for independent examination.","intervention":"Define a Digital Artifact Corpus as an opaque abstract value governed by operations and behavioral laws rather than by a vendor export layout. A corpus is created for an immutable source-image reference, populated by an extraction implementation, and sealed into a versioned snapshot before case-facing use. Public operations retrieve an artifact by opaque handle, return its declared type and unmodified content when available, expose its source-provenance assertion, list explicit qualifications, traverse declared relations, evaluate a constrained query predicate, and export an authorized projection. The contract distinguishes source-observed values from normalized or inferred values; requires every inference and normalization to retain its qualifier and input provenance; treats query result order as unspecified unless explicitly requested; and defines errors for unsupported parsing, unavailable content, invalid handles, and unauthorized projections. Invariants require a sealed snapshot to be immutable, handles to remain stable within that snapshot, each artifact to have a source-derived or explicitly process-derived provenance assertion, relation endpoints to exist, content hashes to match returned content, and rejected operations to leave state unchanged. Storage schema, graph layout, vendor categories, caches, traversal order, parser internals, and internal identifiers remain hidden. A parser-backed, database-backed, or graph-backed implementation becomes substitutable only by satisfying the same black-box corpus tests on predeclared synthetic images and passing a representation-leakage audit.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Abstract component","domain_realization":"A sealed Digital Artifact Corpus derived from one immutable forensic source-image reference."},{"archetype_element":"Observable operation surface","domain_realization":"Create corpus, add extraction results through a controlled builder, seal snapshot, retrieve artifact, retrieve content, obtain provenance and qualifications, traverse declared relations, evaluate constrained predicates, and generate an authorized projection."},{"archetype_element":"Abstract state model","domain_realization":"A source-image reference, snapshot version, opaque artifact handles, artifact values, provenance assertions, qualifications, typed relations, content commitments, authorization-sensitive projections, and an open-or-sealed lifecycle."},{"archetype_element":"Behavioral laws and invariants","domain_realization":"Sealing is irreversible for a snapshot; sealed reads do not mutate state; returned content matches its commitment; every relation references existing artifacts; normalized values retain their source value and transformation qualifier; equivalent predicates denote the same result set; and failures do not create partial public state."},{"archetype_element":"Hidden representation","domain_realization":"Vendor result trees, SQL tables, graph nodes, indexes, caches, parser data structures, generated filenames, internal row keys, and default traversal order."},{"archetype_element":"Abstraction function","domain_realization":"Each valid concrete corpus maps to the set of contract-visible artifact values, relations, provenance assertions, qualifications, and snapshot state that it denotes, independent of storage layout."},{"archetype_element":"Conformance oracle","domain_realization":"A parameterized suite runs public operations against synthetic source images and compares contract-level result sets, contents, provenance, qualifications, relations, errors, and metamorphic relations."},{"archetype_element":"Substitutability rule","domain_realization":"An implementation is accepted for the bounded corpus role only if all mandatory behavioral tests pass, no prohibited representation dependency is exposed, and unresolved divergences are adjudicated before case use."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"abstract_data_type_specification","role":"Defines the corpus through abstract artifact values, lifecycle states, operations, invariants, and a mapping from each permitted concrete store to those meanings.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, the proposal would be a common export vocabulary and could not determine whether two differently represented corpora denote the same public artifact state."},{"mechanism_slug":"design_by_contract_clause","role":"Specifies preconditions, postconditions, unchanged-state guarantees, authorization failures, and error categories for corpus creation, sealing, retrieval, querying, traversal, and export.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, invalid handles, unsupported content, partial extraction, unauthorized projection, and post-seal mutation could behave differently across implementations."},{"mechanism_slug":"opaque_type_or_module_boundary","role":"Gives clients corpus and artifact handles while withholding vendor trees, storage records, and mutable parser objects, forcing access through sanctioned operations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, downstream code could continue reading internal identifiers and layouts, preserving the coupling that prevents substitution."},{"mechanism_slug":"black_box_contract_test_suite","role":"Applies one implementation-parameterized battery of fixture-derived checks to every candidate corpus implementation using only public operations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, behavioral acceptance would depend on documentation, matching schemas, or selected screenshots rather than a shared executable oracle."},{"mechanism_slug":"metamorphic_behavior_test","role":"Checks representation-independent relations where a complete expected artifact list is unavailable, such as query conjunction narrowing result sets, repeat reads preserving results, explicit ordering changing sequence but not membership, and authorized projection removing fields without altering retained values.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, the bounded oracle would lose checks for lawful relations among related queries and projections when no single exhaustive expected output has been declared."},{"mechanism_slug":"property_based_conformance_test","role":"Generates operation sequences and predicates to test lifecycle restrictions, handle validity, relation closure, immutable sealed snapshots, content commitments, and unchanged state after rejected operations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, conformance would rely on a small set of scripted paths and could miss failures produced by unusual sequences or predicate combinations."},{"mechanism_slug":"representation_leakage_probe","role":"Searches public behavior for dependencies on vendor category names, internal row keys, generated filenames, default traversal order, cache timing, and error wording that the contract does not promise.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, implementations could pass promised-behavior checks while exposing convenient accidental features that clients would make load-bearing."},{"mechanism_slug":"semantic_versioning_and_deprecation_gate","role":"Controls changes to artifact meanings, lifecycle rules, qualifications, query semantics, error categories, and authorized projections.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, a later contract revision could silently change corpus meaning while continuing to present itself as compatible."}],"causal_chain":["Digital-forensic clients consume tool-specific result structures rather than a complete behavioral definition of an artifact corpus.","Observable representation details consequently become proxies for artifact identity, query membership, provenance, qualification, and ordering.","A parser or storage substitution can therefore alter downstream behavior even when it processes the same fixed source image.","The intervention defines the corpus as an opaque abstract value with explicit operations, lifecycle, invariants, errors, authorization-sensitive projections, and side-effect limits.","The abstraction function maps each valid implementation to contract-visible artifact meanings while excluding its storage and parser organization.","Black-box, generated-sequence, and metamorphic checks compare implementations at that abstract surface, while leakage probes identify undocumented observables that could recreate coupling.","A candidate satisfying the predeclared acceptance rule can substitute for the bounded corpus role without requiring clients to understand its representation."],"baseline":"The comparison baseline is an implementation-specific artifact workflow in which clients consume a selected tool’s native view or export, migration checks compare fields and example outputs, and tool-specific adapters preserve local identifiers or hierarchy. The bounded study would first document whether this comparator actually contains the hypothesized dependencies rather than presuming their frequency.","nearest_rivals":["A common digital-forensics export schema aligns field names and serialization but does not by itself define lifecycle behavior, query semantics, invariant preservation, error handling, or substitutability.","Mandating one extraction tool avoids immediate cross-tool substitution but leaves downstream clients coupled to that tool’s observable representation.","Pairwise ETL adapters translate one vendor layout into another but can reproduce accidental structures and require separate reconciliation for every tool pair.","Reference-image benchmark reports compare selected outputs but do not necessarily provide an opaque component boundary or a reusable contract for client operations.","Manual examiner validation can assess tool results and scientific fitness but does not supply a representation-independent software contract for downstream retrieval and querying.","Preserving only hashes and raw images protects source integrity but does not define how extracted artifacts, provenance assertions, qualifications, and relations must behave."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal is specifically an abstract behavioral contract for a sealed, queryable artifact corpus. It does not assert that two extraction algorithms are scientifically equivalent, standardize all forensic exchange formats, replace examiner validation, or make raw source inspection unnecessary. Its remaining claim is that client-facing substitution can be governed more directly by corpus operations and laws than by matching vendor representations.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"A laboratory digital-forensics technical lead and quality authority may approve a synthetic-data contract exercise and determine whether a candidate implementation proceeds to formal tool validation. Authorized examiners retain responsibility for case interpretation, reporting, and decisions about whether an extraction method is fit for a particular examination.","authorized_first_step":"Construct non-case synthetic source images with deliberately placed files, timestamps, embedded records, aliases, partial content, and malformed structures; then test a transparent model corpus and one sandbox adapter against a contract written before results are compared.","excluded_actions":["No processing, migration, or reclassification of live case evidence","No replacement of required forensic-tool validation with contract-test results","No automated assertion that an extracted artifact is authentic, inculpatory, exculpatory, or attributable to a person","No deletion or concealment of raw source images, native tool outputs, or examiner notes","No disclosure of restricted artifact content through test projections","No production adoption while semantic divergences remain unresolved","No alteration of expected results after observing which implementation would otherwise fail"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if the abstraction discards a review-relevant source value, cannot distinguish observation from normalization or inference, permits post-seal mutation, exposes unauthorized content, or treats a scientifically meaningful divergence as a representation detail. Retain existing case workflows unchanged, discard only synthetic sandbox corpus state, and return the disputed contract clause to technical and quality review."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would be a set of independently reviewed examples in which artifact meaning cannot be separated from tool-native context, parser-specific diagnostics, original container structure, or examination method. If abstractly equivalent public outputs conceal differences reviewers need to assess reliability, the proposed corpus boundary is too opaque or too coarse for substitution.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified for the bounded clients if dependency inventory and sandbox replacement show that every client already uses an explicit behavioral corpus contract, no client relies on undocumented vendor observables, and alternative implementations agree on contract-visible results and errors across the selected fixtures.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified for the tested scope if a candidate passes all predeclared conformance and leakage checks yet an independent examiner, using information that should have been preserved by the contract, identifies a material difference in artifact membership, content, provenance, qualification, relation, query behavior, or authorization-sensitive output.","risks":["The abstract artifact model may erase method-specific context needed for scientific review.","Fixture expectations may encode one incumbent tool’s interpretation and convert it into an unjustified contract requirement.","Metamorphic relations are necessary conditions only and may allow substantively incorrect corpora to pass.","A stable opaque handle may be mistaken for a cross-snapshot or real-world identity when it is valid only within one snapshot.","Unspecified result ordering may break legitimate review needs unless explicit ordered operations are included.","Authorization-sensitive projections may leak content or provenance relationships if their policies are incomplete.","Passing software conformance may be misrepresented as validation of an extraction method or as confirmation that every relevant artifact was recovered.","Generated malformed inputs could exercise parser behavior without representing the conditions that matter in actual examinations."]},"next_evidence_step":"Use one small synthetic image family containing predeclared byte regions and metadata for intact, deleted, duplicated, nested, timestamped, partially recoverable, and malformed artifacts. Before implementation runs, two authorized reviewers should specify the abstract result for cases with concrete oracles and specify metamorphic relations for query and projection behavior where exhaustive results are not asserted. Run the identical public-operation suite against a deliberately simple model corpus and one independent sandbox adapter. Classify each divergence as a candidate defect, model omission, ambiguous contract clause, or over-specified test. The evidence step ends with that divergence register and does not authorize case use or estimate operational effects.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 governed the continuity history of physical evidence: custody transfers, seal changes, sampling, consumption, and corrections across evidence-record systems. This proposal addresses a different object and failure path—the artifact corpus extracted from an unchanged digital source image, where clients couple to parser and storage representations and substitutions alter retrieval, provenance, qualification, relation, or query semantics. Its intervention is a sealed, queryable artifact-corpus abstract type rather than a mutable evidence-continuity state machine. It is independently adoptable within a digital-forensics extraction and review pipeline without changing physical custody tracking, and Proposal 1 can be adopted without adopting this corpus contract.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Second independently adoptable proposal","Material differentiation from proposal 1","Representation-independent forensic component","Operational authority and safeguards","Bounded falsifiable evidence plan"],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}