{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"GAMMA recommendations for clinical movement-analysis laboratories","overlap":"Recommends regular force-platform signal inspection, documented software settings, repeated checks of platform position, force application point and vector orientation, standardized-weight verification of vertical force, recurring synchronization checks across coupled systems, and equipment checks by manufacturers, in-house medical engineering, or external firms.","remaining_difference":"Does not expressly require platform-specific longitudinal indicator trajectories, persistence/corroboration warning rules, bounded data-interval flags, named interpretability authority, or verified restoration before return to service.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Quality framework for force-plate testing","overlap":"Frames gait-laboratory measurement as a quality-controlled special process and proposes periodic confirmation plus regular spot checks to ensure correct equipment operation and protect clinical interpretation.","remaining_difference":"The accessible description does not specify multi-indicator trend memory, staged warning/unacceptable bands, data-quarantine decisions, or false-alarm review.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"ASTM verification plus AMTI in-house testing and recalibration practice","overlap":"ASTM specifies spatial and load-range performance verification, COP assessment, and traceable reporting; AMTI describes periodic recalibration for wear-related inaccuracies and an in-house known-weight protocol across corners and center with all six channels recorded.","remaining_difference":"These sources emphasize point-in-time verification and recalibration rather than a continuously retained condition history with persistence logic, synchronization trajectories, ownership, and predefined data-protection escalation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim is falsified if existing laboratory quality control already retains an equivalent multi-indicator longitudinal history and response pathway, or if the shadow study shows that trajectory and persistence rules neither detect a reversible introduced integrity change earlier nor produce more decision-relevant warnings than ordinary periodic verification, while adding false alerts or burden.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Relative to established periodic calibration and spot-check practice, retaining platform-specific trajectories across load accuracy, zero/noise, spatial consistency, physical condition, and synchronization—and applying preregistered persistence or corroboration rules—will identify actionable deterioration earlier and delimit uncertain data intervals more reliably than point checks alone.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four lanes covered direct terminology, historical quality-framework language, standards and first-party practice, and component combinations. Four opened sources span four publishers and include an official standard, official guidance, first-party guidance, and primary research.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"An eight-week shadow-mode study on one setup is bounded and feasible. A preregistered reversible perturbation, repeatability and burden measures, independent calibration or technician comparison, and no athlete-facing decisions can test incremental warning value without requiring a full deployment.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Although recurring verification is established, the narrower incremental claim about longitudinal multi-indicator trajectories, persistence/corroboration rules, earlier detection, and bounded data intervals remains falsifiable against ordinary spot checks.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"No categorical stop is apparent if reference loads are handled with approved fixtures and procedures, athlete testing stops for unsafe installation, interpretation remains with the sport scientist, and hardware work remains with qualified personnel. ASTM assigns safety-practice responsibility to the user, while GAMMA routes functionality checks to appropriate technical parties.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"AMTI states that normal wear can cause small force-plate inaccuracies and that accuracy affects research findings and clinical decisions. ASTM emphasizes accurate multi-axis measurements in human-performance and clinical applications, while the research framework calls for regular testing to assure correct interpretation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The measurement-integrity problem is visible: small wear-related inaccuracies can develop, force-platform performance varies across loads and surface locations, and incorrect operation can compromise research or clinical interpretation. Existing guidance already responds with periodic calibration, standardized-load checks, signal inspection, spatial checks, synchronization verification, and regular spot testing.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P031","screen_survival":false,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["force plate calibration validation known weights center of pressure sports biomechanics laboratory","force plate synchronization validation motion capture timing test","standardized test weight force plate pole test synchronization coupled systems"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["force platform quality assurance regular verification reference loads zero drift calibration synchronization","force plate measurement integrity periodic confirmation regular spot checking"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["ASTM F3109 force platform verification","AMTI force plate recalibration known weight in-house testing protocol","clinical movement analysis laboratory force plate quality assurance guidance"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["quality framework force plate testing periodic confirmation regular spot checking","gait laboratory force platform metrological confirmation spot check","force platform calibration cross sensitivity equipment confirmation"],"source_ids":["SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["Multi-axis force platforms require performance verification across their spatial working surface and operating range.","Verification includes spatially distributed error, absolute performance, COP performance, and traceable reporting.","Accurate force-platform measurements matter in clinical and human-performance research."],"publisher":"ASTM International","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"F3109-22 Standard Practice for Verification of Multi-Axis Force Measuring Platforms","url":"https://store.astm.org/f3109-22.html"},{"claims_supported":["Normal wear can cause small inaccuracies and periodic recalibration is needed.","An in-house protocol uses zeroing and a known uniform weight at four corners and the center while recording all six channels.","Small force-platform errors can affect research findings and clinical decisions."],"publisher":"Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc. (AMTI)","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Force Plate Recalibration: In-House Testing Protocol for Multi-Axis Force Plates","url":"https://www.amti.biz/support/resources/force-plate-recalibration/"},{"claims_supported":["Force-platform signals, spatial integration, force-vector orientation, and vertical force using a standardized test weight should be checked regularly.","Sampling frequency and synchronization of coupled systems should be checked repeatedly.","System functionality should be checked by the manufacturer, in-house medical engineering, or external firms."],"publisher":"Gesellschaft für die Analyse Menschlicher Motorik und ihre klinische Anwendung (GAMMA)","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Empfehlungen für die Standardisierung von klinischen Bewegungsanalyselaboren, Version 1.0","url":"https://www.g-a-m-m-a.org/wp-content/uploads/GAMMA_Standards_Gang-und_Bewegungsanalyse-version-1-042024-2.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Force-plate data used for clinical interpretation require assured equipment quality.","A quality framework calls for equipment confirmation and regular testing.","Periodic confirmation and regular spot checking were proposed for force plates and related measurement equipment."],"publisher":"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine (SAGE)","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Quality framework for force plate testing","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1243/0954411971534322"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded four-source screen found substantial prior-art overlap with the proposal's core recurring force-platform quality-assurance practice. It does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value; broader patent, standards, product, and laboratory-practice searches could reveal still closer implementations."}