{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__environmental_climate:P4:v0","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__environmental_climate","proposal_index":4,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific, falsifiable same-policy-version substitution claim: independently implemented recommenders passing one stateful behavioral oracle should agree on contracted outputs without exposing implementation-specific details to clients."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official sources establish consequential, multi-indicator, staged drought-assessment workflows with temporal and governance complexity. The specific representation-coupling failure remains unverified, but the external domain signal is credible enough to justify a targeted workflow audit."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"An operational drought-assessment body such as Virginia DEQ/DMTF, a regulated water utility, or another drought-program owner is a concrete partner class able to authorize the study and interpret its approved policy."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Resolving the key uncertainties requires nonpublic workflow artifacts, an approved policy version, a completed assessment packet, the incumbent implementation, downstream client behavior, and authorized policy interpretation; public research cannot establish these facts."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A program lead can authorize an isolated, non-live comparison using approved materials, with outputs labeled non-authoritative and disconnected from declarations, restrictions, allocations, controls, notifications, and public communications."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The six-to-eight-week design freezes one policy version and packet, compares an incumbent adapter, independent decision table, and manual or schema-only baseline on preregistered boundary and sequential cases, and defines explicit problem and intervention falsifiers."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"No verified pipeline gate is materially NO: the incremental claim, adopter class, bounded test, and safety gate are positive, while problem occurrence and cost scope are explicitly empirical uncertainties rather than disqualifying stops."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step is a partner-authorized workflow audit and controlled cross-implementation experiment with fixed inputs, comparators, measures, mutation tests, and falsification conditions—not an open-ended request for additional research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"An operational drought-program owner with a documented staged assessment workflow, authority to permit a non-live sandbox, access to the incumbent calculator and downstream users, and designated hydrologic or policy owners who can approve interpretations while preserving official declaration authority.","required_access":"Written sandbox authorization; one approved policy and parameter version; one completed, authorized assessment packet; incumbent spreadsheet, dashboard, or rules-engine behavior through an adapter; relevant downstream client interfaces and users; policy owners for semantic adjudication; and approval for any protected data used in the isolated test.","bounded_empirical_test":"Over six to eight weeks, inventory representation dependencies, preregister the contract semantics and expected outcomes, and compare an incumbent adapter, an independently coded decision-table reference, and the current manual or schema-only baseline using the frozen packet and synthetic histories spanning thresholds, equivalent units, field ordering, missing or stale evidence, repeated snapshots, escalation and recovery persistence, corrections, invalidation, and deliberately mutated implementations.","success_condition":"The audit finds decision-relevant representation dependencies, the contract can express the approved policy without exposing incumbent internals, mutation tests reject nonconforming engines, all conforming implementations agree on every contracted output for the preregistered corpus, and clients consume the independent implementation without implementation-specific fields or materially greater change effort than the baseline.","falsification_condition":"Falsify the problem if no representation dependency is found and the independent engine substitutes without client changes or contracted-output divergence. Falsify the intervention if a deliberately nonconforming engine passes, two passing engines disagree on an in-scope result, or expressing the policy requires preserving the incumbent representation as part of the contract.","rationale":"This belongs in the narrow empirical-partner lane because the remaining distinction is specific and testable, credible workflow owners exist, and the decisive evidence is inseparable from authorized access to an actual policy, implementation, packet, and clients. The unresolved questions concern observed coupling, substitution advantage, workflow fit, adopter pull, access, and partner-specific scope—not facts that ordinary public-web research can settle."}