{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__environmental_climate","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"p03-stormwater-buffer-service-contract","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Behavioral Service Contract for Substitutable Stormwater Buffer Units","problem":"A municipal drainage retrofit may specify a runoff-control asset through an incumbent construction design—such as soil depth, pipe geometry, tank arrangement, vegetation, valve layout, or controller type—while stating only a nominal storage capacity at its external boundary. The drainage network, maintenance plan, and control system can consequently depend on incidental behavior such as the asset's recovery curve, overflow route, sensor conventions, power-loss response, or maintenance-state discharge. A different physical design may satisfy the nominal capacity requirement yet fail those undeclared dependencies, while a potentially conforming design may be excluded because its internals differ from the prescribed representation.","actors":["Municipal stormwater engineers who define drainage-service requirements","Site owners who host runoff-control assets","Civil and ecological designers who propose implementations","Manufacturers and contractors who build buffer units","Drainage-network operators who depend on inlet, outlet, and status behavior","Maintenance crews who isolate and restore units","Permitting and public-safety authorities who inspect internal construction","Independent commissioning agents who test conformance"],"observable_state":"For one proposed retrofit, inspect whether downstream calculations, control logic, procurement documents, or maintenance procedures refer to a particular medium, layer, tank, valve, controller, or sensor arrangement rather than declared boundary behavior. Then apply the same predeclared sequence of admissible inflow events, recovery periods, maintenance transitions, sensor faults, and power-loss conditions to two different candidate designs in an isolated hydraulic model or test facility. The problem is observable if both carry the same nominal capacity rating but differ in contracted discharge hydrograph, volume accounting, recovery availability, overflow destination, fault state, or maintenance isolation—or if integrating the second design requires clients to learn its internals.","consequence":"A replacement or alternative runoff-control design can produce an unexpected upstream surcharge, downstream discharge pulse, unavailable capacity, or unsafe maintenance condition because the drainage system relied on behavior that the procurement specification never promised. Conversely, prescribing the incumbent construction can prevent representation changes even when an alternative could provide the required boundary behavior. Responsibility for a discrepancy remains ambiguous because there is no shared test of what constitutes an equivalent unit.","affected_objective":"Preserve declared runoff-attenuation, recovery, overflow, and maintenance behavior at a drainage connection while allowing the unit's physical and control implementation to vary under separate engineering and regulatory review.","intervention":"Define a Stormwater Buffer Unit as a stateful service at specified hydraulic and maintenance ports. Its abstract state comprises available retention volume, operational mode, maintenance-isolation status, declared fault state, accumulated inlet and outlet volumes, and last verified inspection status. Public operations are: commission within a declared site envelope; accept an admissible inflow hydrograph; report capacity and operating state through standardized observations; transition into maintenance isolation; verify emptying or recovery; return to service; and report a fault or out-of-envelope event. Preconditions specify connection elevations, admissible inlet head and hydrograph envelope, outlet conditions, sediment envelope, ambient operating range, power and communication assumptions, and inspection status. Postconditions specify water-volume closure within a declared measurement tolerance, a bounded discharge hydrograph for admissible events, explicit accounting of retained and released volume, a declared recovery condition, discharge only through named routes, and isolation behavior during maintenance. A blocked outlet, failed sensor, power loss, overdue inspection, or out-of-envelope inflow produces a stable status category and a declared safe-response mode rather than silent continued conformance. Internal media, vegetation, tanks, chambers, layer geometry, passive controls, valves, algorithms, and sensor layout are non-contractual for drainage clients. Each design must pass the same sequence-aware commissioning suite and leakage review before being accepted as a substitute for a particular contract version and site envelope. Internal inspection, structural certification, ecological review, and permitting remain mandatory and are not replaced by black-box conformance.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Client requiring a substitutable component","domain_realization":"The drainage network, controller, and maintenance program require a runoff-buffer service without needing a particular internal construction."},{"archetype_element":"Representation-independent operation surface","domain_realization":"Commissioning, inflow acceptance, state and capacity observation, maintenance isolation, recovery verification, return to service, and fault reporting form the public surface."},{"archetype_element":"Abstract state model","domain_realization":"Available capacity, operating mode, isolation, fault state, cumulative boundary volumes, and inspection status describe the unit without naming tanks, soil layers, vegetation, or valves."},{"archetype_element":"Hidden representation","domain_realization":"Storage media, chamber geometry, plant selection, pipe routing, valve design, sensor placement, and control algorithm are not dependencies of drainage clients."},{"archetype_element":"Behavioral laws and invariants","domain_realization":"Boundary volume is accounted for, capacity cannot be negative, discharge uses declared routes, maintenance isolation has defined behavior, and recovery is determined by a public criterion."},{"archetype_element":"Preconditions, errors, and side-effect limits","domain_realization":"The site and inflow envelope allocate client obligations; faults and exceeded envelopes have stable categories and safe-response semantics; undeclared bypasses are forbidden."},{"archetype_element":"Conformance oracle","domain_realization":"A shared commissioning battery exercises event sequences, recovery, faults, power loss, isolation, and boundary accounting without judging designs by their internal form."},{"archetype_element":"Substitutability rule","domain_realization":"A design may replace another only for the same contract version and site envelope after behavioral conformance plus all independent structural, environmental, and regulatory approvals."},{"archetype_element":"Sanctioned introspection","domain_realization":"Authorized engineers, inspectors, and maintainers retain named internal inspection access, but downstream clients may not convert inspected construction details into interface requirements without amending the contract."},{"archetype_element":"Version stewardship","domain_realization":"The municipal stormwater authority governs changes to boundary behavior, envelopes, status semantics, and commissioning tests while permitting conforming internal redesigns."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"abstract_data_type_specification","role":"Defines the buffer through abstract service state and operations, with an implementation invariant for each physical design and a mapping from valid internal conditions to capacity, mode, fault, and boundary-volume state.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an abstract state and mapping, the proposal would be a list of performance measurements and could not determine whether different constructions realize the same stateful service."},{"mechanism_slug":"design_by_contract_clause","role":"Allocates obligations between the drainage connection and the buffer for site conditions, inflow envelopes, outlet conditions, recovery, faults, maintenance, and exceeded preconditions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without these clauses, a failed event could not be attributed to an out-of-envelope demand, a unit defect, or an underspecified boundary, and designs could handle faults incompatibly."},{"mechanism_slug":"opaque_type_or_module_boundary","role":"Restricts ordinary drainage and control clients to inlet, outlet, status, and maintenance ports while reserving explicit internal access for authorized inspection and repair.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the boundary, procurement documents and client systems could continue depending on specific media, layer, valve, or sensor arrangements, defeating physical substitutability."},{"mechanism_slug":"black_box_contract_test_suite","role":"Supplies one sequence-aware commissioning suite for admissible hydrographs, recovery, overflow, isolation, sensor faults, power loss, and boundary-volume accounting across candidate designs.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a common behavioral gate, each design could be approved through unrelated tests or a nominal capacity label that omits operation sequences and failure behavior."},{"mechanism_slug":"property_based_conformance_test","role":"Generates hydraulic event and state-transition sequences within a predeclared envelope in an isolated model or test rig and checks capacity bounds, volume accounting, declared discharge limits, and legal mode transitions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without generated sequences, tests could miss failures caused by uncommon combinations of partial recovery, successive events, maintenance transitions, and fault restoration."},{"mechanism_slug":"representation_leakage_probe","role":"Reviews procurement documents, control messages, maintenance procedures, identifiers, timing behavior, and commissioning reports for observable design details that clients could adopt as unofficial requirements.","counterfactual_removal":"Without leakage review, a formally opaque unit could still expose controller timing, proprietary status codes, or recovery artifacts that make one internal design load-bearing."},{"mechanism_slug":"abstraction_barrier_code_review","role":"Becomes a multidisciplinary interface review in which proposed drainage calculations, control changes, and maintenance procedures are checked for reach-through into non-contractual construction details.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a recorded human judgment process, mechanically valid documents could introduce design-specific dependencies that automated hydraulic tests do not detect."},{"mechanism_slug":"semantic_versioning_and_deprecation_gate","role":"Classifies changes to site envelopes, discharge semantics, fault states, maintenance behavior, and status messages and prevents a breaking change from being presented as a compatible unit revision.","counterfactual_removal":"Without version governance, a supplier or asset owner could alter boundary behavior under an unchanged product or contract label, undermining replacement and historical commissioning records."},{"mechanism_slug":"substitutability_trial_or_canary","role":"Evaluates a candidate on an isolated test connection or safely bypassed pilot, using thresholds fixed before testing and retaining the incumbent drainage path until all gates pass.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a reversible staged trial, conformance would rely entirely on calculations and component tests that may omit installation-specific connection behavior."}],"causal_chain":["A runoff-control asset is specified through construction details plus an incomplete nominal capacity rating.","Drainage calculations, controls, procurement, and maintenance procedures adopt those visible details as assumptions.","A physically different design either cannot be considered or is treated as equivalent based on capacity alone.","Its undeclared recovery, overflow, fault, or maintenance behavior then conflicts with network assumptions, or redesign requires broad client changes.","The intervention defines abstract service state, operations, admissible envelopes, transition laws, errors, and side-effect limits at the hydraulic boundary.","Shared commissioning tests and leakage review judge each implementation against that behavioral surface, while authorized white-box safety and environmental inspections remain separate gates.","A conforming design can be substituted without making drainage clients depend on its construction, and a behaviorally different design must receive a new contract version or site-specific integration."],"baseline":"Use a prescriptive municipal detail or an incumbent vendor design, specify nominal storage volume and selected construction parameters, perform site-specific hydraulic calculations, and approve replacements through engineering judgment. This baseline supports direct inspection but leaves recovery, sequencing, fault, maintenance, and overflow behavior partly implicit and ties client documents to the chosen construction.","nearest_rivals":["A prescriptive construction standard specifying media, dimensions, vegetation, pipes, valves, and sensors; this controls inspectable internals but makes those internals the required representation.","A conventional performance specification containing peak-flow or storage targets; this addresses selected outcomes but may omit abstract state, operation sequences, fault semantics, maintenance transitions, and a reusable substitution oracle.","A site-specific hydraulic approval for each design; this can establish suitability at one installation but does not create a common component contract or prevent client reach-through.","A certification label based on a single design storm; this offers a portable rating but may not govern partial recovery, successive events, faults, isolation, or version changes.","A bespoke adapter or controller for every asset type; this accommodates different representations by translating them individually rather than making implementations conform to one behavioral surface.","Requiring an incumbent unit wherever replacement risk is uncertain; this avoids an immediate interface mismatch but preserves representation lock-in and undefined accidental behavior."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's contrast is a representation-independent, stateful service contract at a physical drainage boundary: it governs event sequences, recovery, operating modes, errors, safe side effects, and substitution through one oracle. It is narrower than whole-site outcome procurement, richer than a capacity rating, and does not replace the internal structural, ecological, or safety assurance that physical infrastructure requires.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The municipal stormwater engineering authority may authorize contract drafting and an isolated evaluation. A licensed responsible engineer, permitting bodies, site owner, safety officials, and environmental reviewers retain their existing authority over design approval, internal inspection, installation, and operation. Procurement staff may not declare equivalence without the engineering acceptance record.","authorized_first_step":"Choose one non-operational retrofit case, translate its drainage requirements into a draft abstract contract, and evaluate two materially different paper designs using a frozen set of hydraulic simulations or an isolated test rig. Record all envelopes and acceptance thresholds before comparison. Do not purchase, install, or connect either design to live drainage.","excluded_actions":["Routing live stormwater through an unapproved candidate","Waiving structural, geotechnical, ecological, accessibility, electrical, or permitting review","Concealing internal construction from authorized inspectors or maintainers","Representing sandbox conformance as proof of flood protection or regulatory compliance","Changing acceptance thresholds after observing a candidate's results","Using an out-of-envelope test failure to alter official hazard assumptions","Procuring or endorsing a supplier through the bounded evidence step","Removing or disabling an incumbent drainage path during an experimental trial"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if testing could affect live drainage, a candidate discharges through an undeclared route, measured volume cannot be reconciled within the predeclared uncertainty treatment, safe fault behavior is absent, protected site information is exposed, or expressing essential safety requirements requires prohibited opacity. Isolate the rig or model, restore the frozen baseline configuration, preserve the test inputs and discrepancy record, and leave the incumbent design and approval process unchanged."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The selected municipality may already use a complete, sequence-aware behavioral specification with stable fault and maintenance semantics, while its drainage clients remain independent of construction details and materially different certified designs substitute without client changes. That would undermine the inferred problem for the selected case.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified for the bounded case if the dependency inventory finds no construction-specific assumptions outside legitimate inspection requirements and two different designs can be integrated under existing documents with identical contracted behavior across the predeclared event and maintenance sequences.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention fails if two designs pass the complete draft oracle yet differ on a network-relevant discharge, recovery, overflow, or isolation behavior within the stated envelope, or if a safe and useful contract must prescribe so much internal construction that meaningful representation independence disappears.","risks":["A supplier could optimize for the commissioning suite while performing poorly under untested event sequences.","A finite site envelope may omit compound, debris-driven, frozen, or long-duration conditions relevant to operation.","Hydraulic equivalence does not establish ecological, water-quality, structural, or lifecycle equivalence.","Measurement uncertainty may be mistaken for permissible behavioral divergence.","An overly detailed contract may recreate a prescriptive design, while an overly abstract contract may omit safety-relevant behavior.","Opaque treatment of internals could obstruct maintenance or inspection if sanctioned access is not explicit and enforceable.","Version changes may strand installed units or complicate spare parts and maintenance training.","A standardized service boundary may not transfer across sites with materially different elevations, soils, downstream controls, or legal constraints."]},"next_evidence_step":"For one hypothetical or otherwise non-operational connection, freeze the inlet and outlet conditions, admissible event envelope, recovery criterion, operating modes, fault cases, measurement tolerances, and acceptance thresholds. Inventory every construction-specific assumption in the existing drainage calculation, control logic, procurement detail, and maintenance procedure. Map two distinct candidate designs to the proposed abstract state, then run the same sequence consisting of an initial event, partial recovery, a second event, maintenance isolation, return to service, a blocked-outlet condition, a status-sensor fault, and power loss in simulation or an isolated rig. Record whether each result is a conformance failure, contract omission, measurement limitation, illegitimate client dependency, or requirement for separate white-box review; make no procurement or operational decision from this first evidence.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 concerned the semantic integrity of a wetland monitoring evidence ledger during workbook, database, or raster replacement; its abstract objects were observations, revisions, quality decisions, queries, and snapshots. Proposal 2 concerned a snowpack simulation module whose host reached into layer and solver state; its contract governed numerical timesteps, thermodynamic stores, boundary fluxes, conservation tolerances, and checkpoints. Proposal 3 instead concerns substitutability of physical stormwater infrastructure at hydraulic and maintenance ports. Its clients are a real drainage network, operators, and procurement process; its representations are tanks, soils, vegetation, valves, and controls; and its evidence comes from commissioning sequences and isolated hydraulic trials alongside mandatory internal safety review. Its causal path begins with construction-prescriptive procurement and incomplete capacity ratings, proceeds through undeclared network dependencies, and ends in unsafe or blocked physical substitution. It neither manages observational records nor replaces a scientific simulation solver and can be adopted independently by a stormwater authority without implementing either earlier proposal.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Generated a third complete proposal materially distinct from proposals 1 and 2.","Applied the representation-independent contract to a physical environmental-adaptation component while retaining explicit white-box safety authority."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version; no parent revision.","Defined a stormwater buffer as a stateful hydraulic service rather than a data ledger or numerical process module."],"operational_changes":["Specified predeclared hydraulic envelopes, sequence-aware commissioning, an isolated test setting, and separate structural and regulatory gates."],"evidence_changes":["Defined observable procurement reach-throughs, multi-event comparisons, strongest counterevidence, and distinct problem and intervention falsifiers."],"claim_changes":["Limited substitutability to a particular contract version and site envelope.","Explicitly excluded claims of novelty, prevalence, demand, flood-protection effect size, or equivalence outside the contracted hydraulic behavior."]}}