{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","cell_id":"decoupling_via_interface__chemistry_materials","arm":"BREADTH_PROBE_ONE_SHOT","candidate_id":"decoupling_via_interface__chemistry_materials__P1","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Contract-Qualified Primer Interlayer for Swappable Battery-Electrode Formulations","problem":"During laboratory screening of battery-electrode materials, an active-material or binder change can alter adhesion, electronic contact, solvent attack, drying stress, and corrosion at the metal current collector. Because the experimental coating contacts the collector directly, researchers may have to retune collector preparation and coating conditions for each formulation, and measured differences can conflate active-material behavior with a changed collector interface.","actors":["Battery materials researchers who formulate and coat experimental electrodes","Laboratory technicians who prepare current collectors and run coating tests","Electrochemical-test owners who interpret electrode comparisons","Laboratory principal investigator and environmental-health-and-safety personnel"],"observable_state":"Across otherwise comparable electrode-screening batches, substituting the active powder, binder, or approved slurry solvent is followed by changes in peel failure location, interfacial resistance, coating delamination, foil discoloration or pitting, and required collector-preparation settings. Laboratory records show formulation-specific changes to foil treatment or coating procedure rather than a stable collector-side protocol.","consequence":"Collector-interface variation can invalidate direct comparison among candidate electrode materials, consume iterations in formulation-specific retuning, and allow adhesion or corrosion failures to be mistaken for limitations of the active material itself.","affected_objective":"Obtain interpretable, repeatable comparisons when substituting experimental electrode formulations while preserving electrical contact, coating integrity, electrochemical compatibility, and visible safety-relevant state.","intervention":"Interpose a thin, separately manufactured conductive primer between the metal foil and experimental electrode coating. Give the primer a foil-facing surface selected for stable attachment and corrosion isolation, and an electrode-facing surface with a specified roughness, surface energy, conductivity, and solvent-resistance envelope. Treat those measurable properties as an explicit interface contract: a formulation may change behind the electrode-facing boundary without changing collector preparation if it stays within the declared envelope. Qualify primer versions on coupons, record compatibility limits, and require explicit requalification rather than silently modifying the primer when the contract changes.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Two components with brittle direct coupling","domain_realization":"The experimental electrode formulation and metal current collector interact directly, so changes in powder, binder, solvent, or drying stress propagate into collector adhesion and contact behavior."},{"archetype_element":"Stable interface boundary","domain_realization":"The conductive primer becomes the sole designed contact surface presented to both the foil and the experimental coating."},{"archetype_element":"Explicit interface contract","domain_realization":"The primer is accepted against declared ranges for sheet resistance, peel-failure location, solvent exposure, electrochemical window, roughness, areal mass, and allowable coating stress."},{"archetype_element":"Encapsulation of internal variation","domain_realization":"Foil alloy, cleaning details, and foil-facing adhesion chemistry remain behind the primer, while active-material and binder variation remains on the electrode side."},{"archetype_element":"Managed interface evolution","domain_realization":"Any primer composition or specification change receives a version identifier, compatibility record, and transition test against retained reference formulations."},{"archetype_element":"Necessary interaction preserved","domain_realization":"Electrons and mechanical load still cross the boundary, while ions are not intentionally transported through the foil-facing interface."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"stable_interface_layer","role":"A contract-qualified conductive primer presents a reproducible external surface while containing variation in the underlying foil and its preparation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the primer, every experimental formulation again contacts the foil directly, so collector-specific adhesion, corrosion, and contact dependencies can propagate into each material substitution."},{"mechanism_slug":"adapter_layer","role":"The primer's two differently functionalized faces translate between metal-foil requirements and the wetting, adhesion, and conductivity requirements of the electrode coating.","counterfactual_removal":"A single undifferentiated coating would have to satisfy both sides through the same surface chemistry and could merely relocate, rather than absorb, the mismatch."},{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_validation","role":"Coupon measurements enforce the declared compatibility envelope and expose formulations that require a new interface version.","counterfactual_removal":"The primer would be only an undocumented wrapper; hidden formulation dependencies and semantic drift in what 'compatible' means could go undetected."}],"causal_chain":["Direct electrode-to-foil contact exposes each new formulation to foil chemistry, preparation details, and surface condition.","A separately qualified primer replaces that broad contact with a narrower, measurable interaction surface.","Its foil-facing side absorbs attachment and corrosion-isolation requirements, while its electrode-facing side presents specified wetting, mechanical, and electrical properties.","A formulation substitution that remains within the interface contract should therefore require no collector-side process change.","Keeping collector preparation and primer version fixed makes residual differences more attributable to the experimental formulation rather than an uncontrolled collector interface.","Versioned qualification makes incompatible changes explicit instead of allowing hidden assumptions to accumulate."],"baseline":"Coat each experimental formulation directly onto cleaned bare foil and tune foil cleaning, roughening, binder content, drying conditions, or collector choice when adhesion or contact fails.","nearest_rivals":["Off-the-shelf carbon-coated current-collector foil used as a generally improved substrate","Formulation-specific binder or coupling-agent optimization at the electrode-to-foil boundary","Mechanical or chemical roughening of bare foil before each coating campaign","Changing foil alloy or collector material to match each electrode chemistry"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate is distinguished not by merely adding a conductive or adhesive coating, but by operating the primer as a dual-faced, versioned interface contract and testing whether electrode formulations can be substituted without collector-side retuning. If the coating is optimized separately for each formulation or exposes undocumented foil dependencies, it is not the proposed decoupling intervention.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The laboratory principal investigator owns the experimental decision; the designated battery-test owner approves electrochemical compatibility criteria, and environmental-health-and-safety personnel control chemical handling, ventilation, waste, and scale limits.","authorized_first_step":"Run a coupon-only comparison using materials, solvents, ventilation, and waste procedures already approved for the laboratory; measure physical adhesion, sheet resistance, visible foil change, and coating integrity without assembling or energizing cells.","excluded_actions":["Charging, cycling, puncturing, heating, or abuse-testing electrochemical cells","Introducing unapproved solvents, reactive powders, nanomaterials, or primer constituents","Scaling coating area or batch quantity beyond the laboratory's existing approved limits","Treating primer coverage as permission to conceal corrosion, gas generation, thermal instability, or other safety-critical state","Changing production specifications, supplier requirements, or downstream test protocols based on the coupon result"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if the primer cracks, delaminates, shows nonuniform resistance, causes visible foil attack, obscures a safety-relevant observation, or requires handling outside approved controls. Quarantine and dispose of coupons through the laboratory's established waste route, retain the bare-foil baseline, and revert subsequent screening to the existing collector protocol."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would be a systematic interaction in which primer adhesion, resistance, or stability changes materially with each binder, solvent, active powder, or electrolyte, showing that formulation internals still determine interface behavior and that the proposed contract is leaky.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified for the selected screening workflow if retained records and controlled bare-foil coupons show that formulation substitutions do not require collector-side retuning and that observed adhesion, corrosion, and resistance variation is negligible relative to measurement repeatability or arises entirely from non-interface causes.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if, after fixing primer version and collector preparation, substituting formulations within the declared envelope still changes failure location or interfacial resistance enough to require formulation-specific collector adjustments, or if the primer adds unstable resistance, masks corrosion, or performs no more consistently than bare foil.","risks":["Abstraction leakage from formulation-dependent swelling, solvent transport, electrolyte permeation, or thermal expansion","Translation loss if the primer suppresses a scientifically meaningful electrode-to-collector interaction","False decoupling caused by direct edge contact, pinholes, or incomplete primer coverage","Added electrical resistance or electrochemically inactive mass","Primer delamination, cracking, or corrosion hidden beneath an apparently intact surface","Interface ossification around a poorly chosen compatibility envelope","Version fragmentation and adapter sprawl across electrode families","Primer chemistry contaminating the electrode or altering results attributed to the active material","A stable average measurement concealing localized defects"]},"next_evidence_step":"Using no more than 18 small foil coupons, compare bare foil and one fixed primer version across three retained, already-approved electrode formulations spanning the laboratory's intended binder or solvent envelope, with three coupons per substrate-formulation condition. Before testing, set acceptance thresholds from the laboratory's existing measurement capability for sheet-resistance change, peel-failure location, visible foil alteration, and coating defects. Keep foil preparation and drying settings fixed. Advance only if the primer meets its contract across all three formulations and the bare-foil comparison shows formulation-dependent interface variation; otherwise reject or narrow the contract. This coupon study does not authorize cell assembly or performance claims.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"No prior proposals or experiment cells were inspected under runtime isolation, so diversity relative to them was not assessed.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["One-shot generation from the supplied archetype and domain card"],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}