{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"representation_independent_interface_contract__nanotechnology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"nanopattern_region_behavioral_contract","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Representation-Independent Contract for Nanoscale Pattern Geometry","problem":"A nanoscale-pattern design toolchain represents material regions as implementation-specific polygon lists, voxel arrays, or implicit fields. Simulation, mask-generation, and inspection clients read those internal structures or rely on accidental behaviors such as element order, boundary rounding, and treatment of overlapping labels. When the geometry backend or discretization changes while its nominal API remains stable, the same target pattern can yield different material classifications near boundaries, different slices, or broken client scripts. The toolchain consequently lacks a defensible rule for deciding whether a replacement geometry implementation preserves the intended pattern.","actors":["Nanopattern designers who define target material regions","Process engineers who convert targets into lithography or assembly instructions","Modeling engineers who simulate nanoscale structures","Metrology engineers who compare inspected structures with targets","Geometry-engine maintainers and tool vendors","Laboratory quality or safety reviewers who authorize fabrication workflows"],"observable_state":"For an identical target pattern, two geometry backends claiming to implement the same component return different material labels, boundary classifications, transformed regions, or error outcomes; alternatively, a client fails after a backend change because it reads concrete polygons, voxel indices, field coefficients, or iteration order. These outcomes can be reproduced with public client workflows and paired backend runs without inspecting either backend's internals.","consequence":"A representation change can alter downstream simulation or fabrication inputs without an explicit contract change, while maintainers cannot distinguish a legitimate internal optimization from a behavior-breaking substitution. This impairs target-pattern fidelity, traceability, and safe replacement of geometry engines.","affected_objective":"Preserve the declared physical meaning and auditable behavior of nanoscale target patterns while allowing polygonal, voxel, implicit-field, or other internal representations to be replaced independently.","intervention":"Introduce an opaque NanoPatternRegion component defined as an immutable, material-labeled spatial relation in a declared coordinate frame and unit system, with an explicit boundary-tolerance policy. Its public operations are create from sanctioned primitives, classify a point as INSIDE, OUTSIDE, or BOUNDARY for a material, return conservative bounds, apply a coordinate transform, combine regions under a declared overlap rule, take a plane slice, and emit a representation-neutral diagnostic summary. Preconditions, postconditions, errors, immutability, and side-effect limits are stated per operation. Behavioral laws include identity-transform preservation, transform/inverse round-trip equivalence outside the boundary band, idempotent union, deterministic overlap-policy application, and agreement between slicing and point classification away from ambiguous boundaries. Polygon lists, voxel grids, implicit fields, acceleration structures, iteration order, and cache state are non-contractual and inaccessible. Every backend must pass the same black-box example and property-based conformance suite before it may be treated as substitutable; contract changes are versioned, and observable but unpromised differences are audited as representation leakage.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Abstract behavioral surface","domain_realization":"NanoPatternRegion operations expose material classification, conservative bounds, transforms, combination, slicing, and neutral diagnostics rather than polygons, voxels, or field coefficients."},{"archetype_element":"Abstract state model","domain_realization":"The abstract value is an immutable relation among spatial positions, material identifiers, coordinate-frame metadata, and a declared boundary-tolerance band."},{"archetype_element":"Representation invariant","domain_realization":"Every valid concrete state denotes finite coordinates in declared units, nonnegative tolerance, valid material identifiers, a defined overlap policy, and conservative bounds enclosing every position classified as inside or boundary."},{"archetype_element":"Abstraction function","domain_realization":"Each valid polygonal, voxel, or implicit representation maps to the same observable three-valued material-membership relation and coordinate metadata, within the contract's declared tolerance semantics."},{"archetype_element":"Behavioral laws and operation sequences","domain_realization":"Identity transforms preserve classification; transform followed by its valid inverse preserves classification away from boundary bands; union is idempotent; repeated reads do not mutate the region; and slice classification agrees with full-region classification for corresponding points away from ambiguity."},{"archetype_element":"Error semantics and side-effect limits","domain_realization":"Invalid units, singular transforms, unknown materials, and prohibited overlaps return typed errors and leave the immutable value unchanged; operations perform no fabrication, instrument control, or hidden file mutation."},{"archetype_element":"Hidden representation","domain_realization":"Meshes, polygon ordering, voxel resolution, implicit coefficients, spatial indexes, caches, and numerical algorithms remain private and cannot be obtained through the public handle."},{"archetype_element":"Conformance oracle","domain_realization":"One parameterized black-box suite checks specified examples, operation laws, typed errors, invariants, and cross-operation consistency against every backend."},{"archetype_element":"Substitutability rule","domain_realization":"A backend is eligible for substitution only if it passes the same contract version's suite and exposes no disallowed representation channel; performance suitability is evaluated separately and cannot excuse semantic divergence."},{"archetype_element":"Versioning and leakage stewardship","domain_realization":"Changes to classification, tolerance, overlap, errors, or side effects require behavioral review and an honest compatibility classification, while ordering, diagnostic content, timing, and serialization are checked for accidental promises."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"abstract_data_type_specification","role":"Defines the representation-free NanoPatternRegion value, concrete-state invariant, and abstraction function connecting each backend to material-membership semantics.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the invariant and abstraction function, the proposal would list operations but provide no basis for deciding whether a new representation denotes the same pattern."},{"mechanism_slug":"opaque_type_or_module_boundary","role":"Exports only a NanoPatternRegion handle and sanctioned operations, making polygon, voxel, field, index, and cache state unreachable to clients.","counterfactual_removal":"Clients could continue reading backend structures directly, so passing behavioral tests would not prevent representation coupling."},{"mechanism_slug":"design_by_contract_clause","role":"Assigns preconditions, postconditions, typed errors, unchanged-state guarantees, and side-effect limits to each geometry operation.","counterfactual_removal":"Backends could share signatures while disagreeing on invalid transforms, overlap conflicts, boundary ambiguity, or mutation."},{"mechanism_slug":"black_box_contract_test_suite","role":"Provides the shared acceptance gate for any backend using only public operations and contract-level observations.","counterfactual_removal":"There would be no reusable operational rule for accepting one representation as a substitute for another."},{"mechanism_slug":"property_based_conformance_test","role":"Generates patterns, points, transformations, and operation sequences to test algebraic laws and invariant preservation across backends.","counterfactual_removal":"The oracle would depend mainly on selected fixtures and could miss sequence-dependent or geometric edge cases."},{"mechanism_slug":"representation_leakage_probe","role":"Inspects observable ordering, diagnostics, serialization, error wording, and coarse timing for unpromised backend clues that clients could adopt.","counterfactual_removal":"A formally opaque handle could still reveal representation through observable behavior and recreate an unofficial interface."},{"mechanism_slug":"semantic_versioning_and_deprecation_gate","role":"Classifies changes to geometry semantics and stages any breaking surface change instead of silently redefining an existing contract version.","counterfactual_removal":"A backend or contract update could change promised boundary or overlap behavior without giving clients a detectable compatibility signal."}],"causal_chain":["Clients currently consume concrete geometry structures or under-specified operations.","Concrete structures and accidental behaviors become dependencies in simulation, mask-generation, and inspection workflows.","Changing the backend or discretization therefore changes client-visible behavior or breaks clients even when the nominal interface is unchanged.","The intervention defines nanoscale pattern geometry as an abstract material-membership value with explicit operations, laws, invariants, errors, tolerance semantics, and side-effect limits.","An opaque boundary prevents direct dependence on polygonal, voxel, or implicit storage.","A shared black-box and property-based oracle tests each backend against the same abstract obligations, while leakage review detects unpromised observable dependencies.","Only conforming, non-leaking implementations qualify as substitutes under that contract version.","Backend replacement can then be evaluated as preservation of declared pattern meaning rather than similarity of internal data structures."],"baseline":"The bounded comparison baseline is the existing representation-specific arrangement: clients receive or inspect concrete geometry data, backend-specific tests assert stored elements or traces, and replacement approval relies on selected output comparisons and maintainer judgment rather than a shared behavioral acceptance rule.","nearest_rivals":["Mandate one canonical polygon or voxel file format. This simplifies exchange but freezes a representation and does not specify behavior across operation sequences or boundary cases.","Write adapters between each pair of geometry backends and clients. Adapters translate structures but multiply pairwise mappings and do not establish one representation-independent meaning.","Freeze the incumbent geometry engine. This avoids immediate substitution risk but prevents independent backend replacement and leaves accidental client dependencies intact.","Compare exported images or masks manually before each change. This can reveal selected discrepancies but is not a reusable behavioral oracle and may miss errors, transformations, and operation-sequence laws."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's distinctive testable claim is structural, not novel or quantitative: defining NanoPatternRegion by observable spatial behavior, hiding its concrete geometry, and gating every backend with one contract-derived oracle should distinguish meaning-preserving substitutions from implementations that merely share a format or common-case appearance.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The geometry-component steward may define and test a draft contract in an isolated design-tool environment. Fabrication release remains with the laboratory's existing process, quality, and safety authorities.","authorized_first_step":"Create an offline prototype contract and conformance harness against synthetic or previously approved non-production pattern fixtures; do not connect it to fabrication equipment or make it an acceptance gate.","excluded_actions":["Sending prototype-generated patterns to lithography, deposition, etching, assembly, or other fabrication equipment","Replacing a validated production geometry backend","Changing established process tolerances, material rules, or device acceptance criteria","Treating conformance as evidence that a pattern is manufacturable, physically safe, or fit for a particular application","Exposing proprietary backend internals merely to make the prototype oracle pass"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if the draft abstraction suppresses a process-critical distinction, if a test requires representation-specific exceptions, or if any prototype output reaches a production workflow. Roll back by disabling the prototype interface and harness, retaining existing backend and approval paths, and recording the unresolved semantic distinction for domain review."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A dependency audit finds that clients already use only a documented opaque behavioral surface, and independently implemented backends already produce the same contract-defined classifications, transitions, and errors under a shared representation-neutral conformance gate. That would show the proposed missing boundary is not the operative constraint.","problem_falsifier":"Across the bounded fixtures and client inventory, backend changes neither expose concrete representation dependencies nor produce unexplained differences in any downstream-observed geometry behavior; observed failures instead arise entirely from separately specified process-physics models or instrument calibration.","intervention_falsifier":"Two independently constructed backends cannot satisfy a useful common contract without representation-specific clauses, or they pass the proposed suite while producing a contract-relevant divergence on a held-out operation sequence. Either result shows that the abstraction or oracle is inadequate for substitution.","risks":["A tolerance band chosen for software convenience could hide physically consequential boundary differences.","An under-specified contract could allow divergent backends to pass, while an over-specified contract could freeze incidental numerical behavior.","Generated tests may undersample thin features, near-touching regions, singular transforms, or conflicting material labels.","Diagnostic or serialization escape hatches could leak representation despite an opaque primary type.","Conformance could be misread as proof of manufacturability, device performance, metrology validity, or physical safety.","Separating semantic conformance from performance may admit a correct but operationally unusable backend unless resource evaluation remains an additional gate."]},"next_evidence_step":"In an isolated harness, specify the draft state model and clauses before inspecting backend outputs, then implement two deliberately different toy backends for a restricted primitive set, such as analytic rectangles/circles and a voxelized approximation. Run one shared suite over a bounded fixture set containing ordinary regions, features near the declared tolerance, overlaps, empty regions, unit changes, and valid or singular transforms. Include fixed examples, generated operation sequences, and leakage checks for ordering and diagnostics. Record each divergence as a defect in a backend, a defect in the test, or an under-specified contract clause. The step ends without fabrication or production integration; failure to classify divergences without representation-specific exceptions is evidence against proceeding.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed; this sealed candidate is derived only from the supplied archetype, authored mechanisms, and nanotechnology domain card.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Initial complete proposal","Concrete nanotechnology problem inference","Representation-independent causal preservation","Authority and safety bounding","Contrastive rivals and falsifiers","Bounded first evidence"],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version defines nanoscale pattern geometry as an abstract, immutable material-membership relation with explicit tolerance semantics."],"operational_changes":["Initial version limits the first step to an offline two-backend harness using non-production fixtures."],"evidence_changes":["Prior art remains unsearched; no external evidence or effect claim is introduced."],"claim_changes":["Claims are limited to a testable structural contrast and do not assert novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size."]}}