{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","cell_id":"formal_derivation_system_design__chemistry_materials","arm":"BREADTH_PROBE_ONE_SHOT","candidate_id":"formal_derivation_system_design__chemistry_materials__P1","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Derivation-Checked Compatibility Calculus for Multilayer Thin-Film Process Plans","problem":"Teams designing multilayer thin-film devices often assess each deposition, etch, cleaning, and annealing step separately, while the admissibility of the complete sequence depends on accumulated changes to every previously formed layer and interface. Material identities, process conditions, certified compatibility facts, inferred state transitions, and expert assumptions are mixed in recipes and prose. Consequently, two engineers can reach different conclusions about whether the same process sequence preserves the intended stack, with neither conclusion carrying an auditable derivation.","actors":["Thin-film materials scientist","Process integration engineer","Deposition or etch equipment specialist","Materials-characterization scientist","Laboratory safety reviewer","Formal-kernel maintainer"],"observable_state":"A proposed process plan lists an ordered sequence of operations, but reviewers cannot trace its final-stack feasibility to explicit, versioned premises. Typical observable disagreements concern whether a solvent attacks an existing layer, an anneal exceeds a layer's certified thermal window, a plasma changes an exposed interface, or successive steps exhaust a cumulative process budget.","consequence":"An incompatibility may be discovered only after fabrication or characterized ambiguously, consuming samples and equipment time and leaving the team unable to distinguish an invalid sequence from an incorrect material fact or an out-of-scope interaction.","affected_objective":"Produce auditable, reproducible determinations of whether a proposed thin-film fabrication sequence is derivable as compatible with declared layer-preservation constraints, without treating derivability as proof that the device will perform.","intervention":"Create a bounded formal transition system for one thin-film stack family. Its vocabulary represents layers, interfaces, phases, exposure status, certified temperature and chemical windows, operations, and provenance-tagged external facts. Its grammar defines legal stack states and parameterized process steps. Its axiom base contains only reviewed measurements, supplier constraints, and explicitly labeled assumptions. Transition rules update the stack after each operation and generate preservation obligations for all affected layers and interfaces. A mechanical checker accepts a plan only when every step is well formed and every obligation has a derivation; otherwise it returns malformed, contradicted, non-derivable, or external-review-required with the failed rule and premise trace.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Symbol Vocabulary","domain_realization":"Typed symbols for material layers, interfaces, phases, exposure states, process operations, temperature-time envelopes, chemical environments, and provenance-tagged evidence."},{"archetype_element":"Well-Formed Expression Grammar","domain_realization":"Rules defining legal layer stacks and operations, such as Deposit(material, method, parameters), Expose(environment, duration), Etch(target, chemistry), and Anneal(temperature, duration, atmosphere), with required units and typed inputs."},{"archetype_element":"Axiom Base","domain_realization":"Versioned, reviewed compatibility facts and declared assumptions, such as a material's certified stability window under a specified atmosphere or its measured response to a named solvent."},{"archetype_element":"Inference Rule Set","domain_realization":"State-transition and obligation rules that expose buried interfaces when layers are removed, accumulate thermal or chemical exposure, propagate effects to reachable layers, and require preservation predicates after each step."},{"archetype_element":"Derivation Trace Record","domain_realization":"A stepwise certificate linking each accepted stack transition and discharged preservation obligation to named rules, axioms, external facts, and kernel version."},{"archetype_element":"Closure Boundary","domain_realization":"The calculus determines compatibility only for represented materials, operations, interaction classes, and certified parameter ranges; unknown synergistic reactions, morphology evolution, and device performance remain outside closure."},{"archetype_element":"Consistency Guardrail","domain_realization":"Contradiction checks flag overlapping premises that assert both stability and instability for the same material, environment, parameter range, and measurement context."},{"archetype_element":"External Fact Gateway","domain_realization":"New empirical measurements enter only as provenance-tagged candidate facts reviewed before promotion into a versioned axiom catalog."},{"archetype_element":"Revision and Versioning Rule","domain_realization":"Changes to a material fact or transition rule create a new kernel version and rerun exemplar compatible, incompatible, and deliberately undecidable process plans."},{"archetype_element":"Interpretation Boundary","domain_realization":"A derivable plan means only that no represented constraint is violated under accepted premises; it does not establish empirical success, safety, manufacturability, yield, or device quality."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"formal_grammar_specification","role":"Makes malformed stack states, missing units, undefined materials, and ill-typed operations detectable before compatibility reasoning begins.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the grammar, invalid records could enter the rule engine and apparent derivations could depend on ambiguous operation descriptions."},{"mechanism_slug":"rewrite_or_transition_rule_engine","role":"Applies each fabrication operation to the current symbolic stack and generates the next state plus preservation obligations for affected layers and interfaces.","counterfactual_removal":"Without explicit transition rules, reviewers would again infer cumulative process effects informally and could not reproduce the same final-state judgment."},{"mechanism_slug":"proof_tree_or_derivation_log","role":"Records which axioms and rules license every accepted transition or explain each rejection and unresolved obligation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a derivation log, an accept or reject output would be an opaque compatibility score rather than an auditable formal conclusion."},{"mechanism_slug":"consistency_and_contradiction_test","role":"Detects incompatible certified facts or assumptions before they silently support different conclusions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without contradiction testing, separate derivations could accept and reject the same plan under an unnoticed inconsistent premise set."},{"mechanism_slug":"formal_system_change_control_workflow","role":"Versions facts and rules and regression-checks known derivations whenever the kernel changes.","counterfactual_removal":"Without change control, a corrected material fact could silently alter prior plan judgments and erase their reproducibility."}],"causal_chain":["Process compatibility knowledge currently resides in recipes, prose, tables, and expert memory with different kinds of statements conflated.","A typed vocabulary and grammar separate valid descriptions of stack states and operations from malformed or underspecified descriptions.","Reviewed empirical facts and explicit assumptions become a versioned axiom base rather than hidden premises.","Transition rules mechanically propagate each operation through the evolving stack and issue preservation obligations for affected layers and interfaces.","The checker accepts only obligations derivable from the current axioms and rules, while distinguishing contradiction, non-derivability, and out-of-scope interactions.","The resulting certificate exposes exactly which premise or rule supports each compatibility judgment and which unresolved point requires measurement or expert review.","Versioned regression checks reveal when a revised fact or rule changes earlier compatibility determinations."],"baseline":"Engineers review process recipes using material data sheets, compatibility tables, equipment limits, spreadsheets, prior runs, and expert discussion. These resources can inform decisions but usually do not define a single expression grammar, distinguish axioms from assumptions, propagate every operation through an explicit stack state, or emit a rule-by-rule certificate.","nearest_rivals":["A material compatibility matrix that records pairwise allowed or disallowed combinations but does not derive consequences across an ordered, state-changing sequence.","A process-design-rule checker that tests fixed parameter limits but lacks an explicit axiom layer, external-fact provenance, and proof trace for cumulative material transformations.","Failure mode and effects analysis that organizes anticipated hazards but does not generate stack states through mechanically applied inference rules.","Multiphysics or reaction simulation that predicts selected physical behavior but does not establish rule-conformant derivability across heterogeneous empirical constraints."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The testable contrast is that representing fabrication planning as typed state transitions with explicit premises and proof obligations can identify whether a whole process sequence is derivable within a declared compatibility boundary, whereas pairwise matrices and prose review leave cumulative state propagation and hidden assumptions to the reviewer. This claim concerns trace structure and classification, not novelty or fabrication performance.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The checker has authority only to classify formal derivability within its named version. The responsible materials scientist and process owner retain authority to approve experiments, and the laboratory safety function retains independent authority over chemical and equipment safety.","authorized_first_step":"Build and evaluate a read-only prototype on historical records for one stack family; it may issue diagnostic classifications but may not authorize, schedule, or execute a fabrication step.","excluded_actions":["Automatically approving or executing deposition, etch, cleaning, annealing, or chemical-handling steps","Treating absence of a represented incompatibility as evidence of physical safety or device success","Promoting unreviewed measurements or model outputs into axioms","Overriding equipment interlocks, laboratory procedures, or safety review","Applying the calculus to materials, interactions, or parameter ranges outside its declared boundary"],"halt_rollback":"Halt evaluation if a premise contradiction, unit ambiguity, unsupported transition, nontermination, or mismatch with the source record is found. Preserve the trace, withdraw the affected rule or candidate fact, revert to the last named kernel version, and route the case to domain review."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"For the bounded historical sample, ordinary expert review or a simple compatibility matrix produces equally explicit premise attribution and cumulative-state classifications, while the formal calculus adds no independently checkable trace information or repeatedly misrepresents domain judgments.","problem_falsifier":"The target team's disagreements are not caused by hidden premises or untracked cumulative transformations; instead, all disputed plans already have explicit, reproducible reasoning and failures arise only from stochastic fabrication variation or missing measurements.","intervention_falsifier":"After encoding agreed facts and rules, competent reviewers cannot map real process plans into the grammar without discretionary reinterpretation, or the checker accepts known incompatible sequences, rejects known compatible sequences, or labels most cases out of scope for reasons intrinsic to the representation.","risks":["False confidence if derivability is mistaken for empirical compatibility, safety, yield, or performance","Encoding errors or incomplete interaction classes may produce formally valid but physically misleading conclusions","Overly narrow grammar may exclude legitimate process innovation or force nuanced states into incorrect categories","Contradictory or context-dependent measurements may be flattened into unjustified axioms","Maintenance burden and rule growth may make checking nonterminating or practically unusable","A certificate may obscure the value judgments involved in choosing preservation constraints and acceptable evidence"]},"next_evidence_step":"Select one existing thin-film stack family and freeze a retrospective set of no more than 12 completed process plans, including accepted, rejected, and unresolved cases. With two domain reviewers, encode only the materials, operations, constraints, and source facts present in those records; predeclare expected classifications before running the checker. Compare checker classifications and premise traces with the archived decisions, recording malformed inputs, missing axioms, contradictory facts, unsupported rules, reviewer disagreements, and runtime. Do not use the prototype to guide new fabrication.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Generated in runtime isolation as a single one-shot candidate; no other proposals or experiment candidates were inspected or compared.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Initial one-shot construction from the supplied archetype and domain card"],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}