{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","cell_id":"objective_weighting_governance__chemistry_materials","arm":"BREADTH_PROBE_ONE_SHOT","candidate_id":"objective_weighting_governance__chemistry_materials__P1","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Governed Electrolyte Formulation Gate for Battery Pilot Scale-Up","problem":"A battery-materials program ranks candidate electrolyte formulations for pilot scale-up using a composite score that combines electrochemical performance, process compatibility, safety, environmental burden, supply risk, and cost. The coefficients, scoring scales, and assumptions about which shortcomings may be compensated by strengths elsewhere are set inside the technical model without an accountable approval process.","actors":["Electrolyte formulation scientists","Cell-testing engineers","Pilot-line manufacturing engineers","Environment, health, and safety reviewers","Materials sourcing specialists","Battery program decision owner"],"observable_state":"For the same candidate-test dossier, changing undocumented or weakly justified coefficients can change which formulation ranks first; reviewers can see measured inputs but cannot trace why one objective dominates, which safety or compatibility minima are protected, or who authorized the tradeoffs.","consequence":"A formulation can advance to resource-intensive pilot work because favorable performance or cost compensates for a weakness that responsible reviewers would have treated as disqualifying, while a viable alternative is deferred without a reviewable rationale.","affected_objective":"Select an electrolyte formulation for pilot scale-up that meets non-negotiable safety and process-compatibility requirements and makes explicit, accountable tradeoffs among the remaining performance, environmental, supply, and cost objectives.","intervention":"Create a governed formulation gate: define each objective and proxy; separate EHS and process-compatibility eligibility floors from compensatory preferences; have named technical functions propose scoring scales and weights with rationales; disclose candidate-level impact traces; run a weight sensitivity sweep over documented plausible disagreements; require the program decision owner and EHS authority to review the resulting ranking-stability report; record approval, objections, effective date, and revision triggers before the score may recommend a pilot candidate.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Objective Set","domain_realization":"Electrochemical performance, pilot-process compatibility, safety, environmental burden, supply risk, and cost for each electrolyte formulation."},{"archetype_element":"Objective Weight","domain_realization":"Explicit coefficients applied only to objectives designated as compensatory after eligibility floors are satisfied."},{"archetype_element":"Protected Threshold","domain_realization":"Preapproved EHS and process-compatibility test criteria that a high score on another objective cannot offset."},{"archetype_element":"Weight-Setting Process","domain_realization":"Documented proposals from cell testing, manufacturing, EHS, sourcing, and program leadership, including the rationale and authority for each scale and weight."},{"archetype_element":"Proxy Alignment Check","domain_realization":"Review whether each laboratory measurement actually represents the claimed scale-up objective under the intended cell chemistry and pilot conditions."},{"archetype_element":"Decision Impact Trace","domain_realization":"A candidate-by-candidate record showing score contributions, threshold results, and which formulation advances under each approved weight set."},{"archetype_element":"Stakeholder Review and Legitimacy Rule","domain_realization":"The program owner may authorize performance, cost, and supply tradeoffs, while EHS retains authority over protected safety eligibility criteria; both must sign the disclosed rule."},{"archetype_element":"Weight Sensitivity Analysis","domain_realization":"A bounded sweep across weight sets supplied by the accountable functions, reporting rank changes and threshold-adjacent cases."},{"archetype_element":"Revision Procedure and Audit Trail","domain_realization":"Reapproval is triggered by a changed cell design, pilot process, test method, safety requirement, sourcing condition, or newly observed candidate failure; all changes retain author, reason, and date."},{"archetype_element":"Score Interpretation Rule","domain_realization":"The composite score may recommend among eligible formulations for a pilot experiment; it cannot waive a threshold or authorize commercial deployment."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"weighted_scoring_model","role":"Combines normalized evidence for the compensatory objectives after threshold screening and exposes every contribution to the recommendation.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, reviewers could retain separate measurements but would lack a consistent, inspectable translation from governed tradeoffs to the pilot recommendation."},{"mechanism_slug":"deliberative_weight_setting_session","role":"Makes each technical function state which tradeoffs it accepts, the limits of its authority, and the rationale for proposed weights and scales.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the session, coefficients could remain a model-builder choice even if they were later displayed."},{"mechanism_slug":"weight_sensitivity_sweep","role":"Tests the candidate ranking under the documented range of plausible accountable weight choices.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the sweep, disclosure would not reveal whether the selected formulation depends on a narrow or disputed coefficient choice."},{"mechanism_slug":"ranking_stability_report","role":"Shows the gate reviewers which candidates remain preferred and which exchange rank across plausible weight sets.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the report, raw sensitivity outputs would not be translated into a decision-level fragility signal."},{"mechanism_slug":"audit_trail_for_weight_changes","role":"Records who changed a scale, threshold, or weight, under what authority, why, and when it became effective.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the audit trail, post-hoc coefficient changes could not be distinguished from governed revisions."}],"causal_chain":["The program names the intended pilot decision and defines measurable objectives without treating proxies as the objectives themselves.","EHS and manufacturing reviewers identify requirements that must remain non-compensatory and encode them as eligibility thresholds.","Accountable functions propose compensatory weights and scoring scales with documented rationales and uncertainty.","The scoring model produces candidate-level contribution traces rather than only a total score.","A weight sensitivity sweep reveals whether plausible disagreement changes the leading eligible formulation.","The ranking-stability report converts that fragility into a review trigger: approve a robust recommendation, deliberate among weight-sensitive candidates, or request discriminating evidence.","Authorized reviewers approve or reject the weighting rule before it can recommend pilot work, and the audit trail plus revision triggers preserve accountability as conditions change."],"baseline":"A formulation spreadsheet normalizes test results, assigns coefficients through informal agreement among model builders or program leads, and reports a single total ranking. Safety or process concerns may appear as low weighted scores rather than explicit eligibility floors; weight changes, objections, and ranking sensitivity are not systematically recorded.","nearest_rivals":["A fixed pass/fail specification sheet, which protects minima but does not govern tradeoffs among formulations that pass.","A Pareto-front comparison, which preserves multiple objectives without collapsing them but leaves the final selection rule and its authority unresolved.","A design-of-experiments or materials-informatics optimizer, which searches formulation space efficiently but does not legitimate the objective weights supplied to it.","A lifecycle or hazard assessment, which develops evidence for particular objectives but does not determine how those objectives may trade against performance, supply, or cost.","An expert scale-up committee using holistic judgment, which can integrate context but may not expose weights, rank sensitivity, or revisions in a reproducible decision trace."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate specifically governs who may encode cross-objective tradeoffs, which criteria cannot be traded away, and how weight-sensitive formulation rankings alter approval. Its contrast with pass/fail specifications, optimization, assessment, or unstructured expert review is the linked sequence of explicit authorization, impact tracing, sensitivity-triggered deliberation, and auditable revision around the weighted decision rule.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The battery program decision owner may approve the compensatory weighting rule and authorize a pilot recommendation only after the designated EHS authority confirms protected thresholds and the pilot-line lead confirms process-compatibility criteria. Model builders calculate scores but cannot authorize weights or waive thresholds.","authorized_first_step":"Run a retrospective, shadow-only reconstruction on up to eight already-documented formulation dossiers; use existing measurements, solicit one candidate weight set from each accountable function, and produce an undisclosed-to-operations ranking-stability report for review.","excluded_actions":["Changing an active formulation-selection decision","Running new chemical syntheses or cell experiments","Waiving or weakening an EHS or process-compatibility threshold","Authorizing pilot manufacture, procurement, or commercial deployment","Publishing comparative supplier or formulation results outside the review group"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the shadow exercise if required measurements are incomparable, confidential formulation data cannot be access-controlled, a proxy lacks an agreed interpretation, or reviewers dispute threshold authority. Preserve the original historical decisions, withdraw the shadow ranking from use, and archive the draft weights and reasons for suspension as non-operative records."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Historical decision records already show explicit objectives, authorized weights and scales, non-compensatory thresholds, candidate-level impact traces, sensitivity results, objections, revision triggers, and dated approvals that match the proposed governance sequence.","problem_falsifier":"Across the bounded dossiers, no consequential decision combines objectives compensatorily: formulations are selected by a single uncontested objective or by independent hard specifications with no composite ranking. In that case, the diagnosed weighting-governance problem is absent.","intervention_falsifier":"Using independently proposed plausible weight sets on the bounded dossiers yields interpretable but persistently divergent rankings, and the authorized reviewers cannot establish a legitimate rule for choosing, constraining, or escalating among them; the governed score then fails to support the pilot gate and should be replaced by a non-collapsing decision method.","risks":["Participants may rationalize weights to reproduce a preferred historical candidate.","Normalization choices may hide value judgments even when headline weights are disclosed.","False commensurability may make unlike chemical, safety, environmental, and commercial evidence appear more precise than it is.","A threshold may be mislabeled as a preference, allowing compensation around a protected minimum.","A preference may be mislabeled as a threshold, unnecessarily eliminating potentially useful formulations.","Sensitive formulation or supplier information may be exposed through detailed impact traces.","The review panel may be nominal while actual authority remains with program leadership.","Weight ranges may exclude genuine disagreement and make rankings appear artificially stable.","Transparent scoring may invite gaming of measurements or dossier presentation.","Governance overhead may delay a time-sensitive pilot decision." ]},"next_evidence_step":"Within two weeks, reconstruct the baseline score and governed shadow score for no more than eight completed formulation dossiers. Record whether objectives, scales, weights, thresholds, and authority can be identified; run only the accountable functions' submitted weight sets; count rank reversals, threshold conflicts, missing proxy rationales, and unresolved authority disputes. Success for this evidence step is a reviewable report that lets the decision owner determine whether a live, prospective trial is warranted; it does not authorize operational adoption or support an effect-size claim.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed because runtime isolation forbids inspection of other proposals; this candidate is derived only from the supplied archetype and chemistry/materials domain card.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}