{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"NASA-STD-7009B, Standard for Models and Simulations","overlap":"Requires records of M&S acceptance criteria, inputs and their pedigrees, setup rationales, uncertainties, versions, failures, technical reviews, assessed risks, and warnings to decision makers. It also ties credibility and permissible use to V&V, sensitivity, uncertainty, and technical-authority oversight.","remaining_difference":"It does not expressly treat the complete set of explored bracket alternatives as one multiplicity-bearing claim family, automatically downgrade a sweep-selected design to exploratory status, or require confirmation on sealed evidence unused during selection before release eligibility.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"FAA AC 20-107B composite-structure building-block substantiation","overlap":"Requires composite strength substantiation through analysis and progressively representative tests, consideration of material and process variability and critical loading conditions, validation of analysis methods, and component-level final validation.","remaining_difference":"It addresses physical and model substantiation rather than selection-induced optimism. It does not require an immutable inventory of every attempted geometry and analytic choice, frozen post-selection criteria, sealed confirmation inputs, or status promotion based on the discovery path.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"ASME V&V 10 for computational solid mechanics","overlap":"Provides an established VVUQ framework for assessing and improving the credibility of computational solid-mechanics models—the technical setting of the proposed bracket simulations.","remaining_difference":"The public standard description does not disclose a claim-family registry, mandatory retention of all search alternatives, exploratory-versus-confirmed status transitions, or a sealed holdout gate tied to design-release eligibility.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"The optimizer's curse","overlap":"Provides the primary theoretical mechanism: selecting the highest-valued alternative from imperfect estimates makes the selected alternative's observed estimate systematically optimistic even when individual estimates are unbiased.","remaining_difference":"It diagnoses and offers Bayesian adjustment for optimization-based selection bias, but does not implement an aerospace design-record workflow combining complete run provenance, preregistration, sealed structural confirmation, and release authority.","source_ids":["SRC3"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim would be falsified if an existing aerospace V&V or configuration-control implementation were shown to already require, for a sweep-selected structural design, reconstruction of every attempted alternative and analytic path, an automatic exploratory label, criteria frozen before opening untouched confirmation inputs, and a release-eligibility block until independent confirmation under those criteria.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Existing sources separately address optimizer-induced optimism, simulation-record credibility, solid-mechanics VVUQ, and test-supported composite substantiation. The remaining testable contrast is whether making the entire search path an explicit input to claim status—and requiring sealed, independently evaluated confirmation evidence—changes a bracket candidate's release eligibility beyond ordinary optimization, configuration management, or V&V practice.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered the proposal directly, optimizer's-curse and older selection-bias terminology, aerospace products/practices/standards, and combinations of simulation provenance, composite substantiation, V&V, fixed criteria, and independent confirmation. Four retained sources from four publishers were opened; three are official standards or guidance and one is primary research. No exact integrated implementation was found, although the search cannot prove absence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A one-cycle shadow pilot is bounded and reversible: inventory runs, freeze one candidate and rule, reserve an unused batch and load sequence, conduct an independent check, and compare baseline versus gate status without changing tooling or release. NASA record requirements and FAA test-supported substantiation provide concrete audit and validation comparators.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"The proposal predicts an observable status difference specifically caused by complete search-path disclosure plus sealed confirmation. The retained standards substantially overlap on records and V&V but do not disclose that combined multiplicity-aware promotion rule.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"Shadow mode leaves the approved design and release decision unchanged, preserves records, and assigns promotion authority to the airframe design authority. FAA guidance supports additional validation rather than bypassing qualification; the stated intervention also expressly excludes substituting the gate for material qualification, hazard analysis, or engineering judgment.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Primary research establishes selection-induced optimistic estimates when the best alternative is chosen from noisy estimates. NASA requires uncertainty, sensitivity, input, setup, version, failure, and risk records for credible M&S use, while FAA guidance recognizes sensitivity to modeling parameters and requires test-supported validation and material/process variability treatment. These support the mechanism and consequence, though they do not directly measure prevalence of hidden bracket-search histories.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The general problem mechanism is visible: optimization-based selection can make the chosen alternative's estimate optimistic, and authoritative aerospace sources treat model sensitivity, uncertainty, provenance, critical load cases, material variability, and independent test correlation as credibility-relevant. Evidence is only partial for the proposal's narrower prevalence claim that composite-bracket teams routinely conceal broad search histories or advance such results toward tooling.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P038","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":"No exact public source was found combining an immutable all-attempt ledger, multiplicity-based exploratory status, preregistered confirmation criteria, sealed material/load holdouts, and an aerospace release-authority gate.","queries":["composite bracket simulation provenance all design alternatives independent validation held-out test data","finite element design optimization immutable run ledger frozen acceptance criteria independent confirmation","structural optimization selection bias configuration management verification validation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No direct match for a named Bracket Evidence Promotion Gate or an equivalent integrated bracket-release workflow was located.","queries":["\"Bracket Evidence Promotion Gate\"","composite bracket optimization many design configurations validation finite element analysis independent test","aerospace structural optimization selected design sealed confirmation release gate"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["NASA standard simulation credibility validation configuration management independent data","FAA AC 20-107B composite aircraft structure finite element validation test substantiation","ASME V&V 10 computational solid mechanics validation standard acceptance criteria"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["simulation optimization selection bias best design winner's curse engineering","optimizer's curse engineering design optimization simulation","multiple comparisons analytic flexibility structural simulation validation"],"source_ids":["SRC3"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["M&S used for consequential decisions requires credibility controls tied to criticality and technical authority.","Records must cover acceptance criteria, inputs and pedigrees, setup rationales, uncertainties, failures, reviews, risks, and reporting warnings.","The standard provides substantial adjacent provenance and credibility practice but does not expressly impose the proposal's multiplicity-aware sealed-confirmation promotion gate."],"publisher":"NASA Technical Standards System","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"NASA-STD-7009B: Standard for Models and Simulations","url":"https://standards.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/standards/NASA/B/1/NASA-STD-7009B-Final-3-5-2024.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Composite structural strength should be established incrementally through analysis and building-block tests.","Critical loading conditions, material and process variability, model sensitivity, and test-supported validation matter to substantiation.","Component tests provide final validation for combined loads and complex load paths."],"publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"AC 20-107B: Composite Aircraft Structure","url":"https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC20-107B.pdf"},{"claims_supported":["Selecting the best alternative using imperfect estimates causes the chosen alternative's estimate to be optimistic even if individual estimates are unbiased.","Optimization-based selection can therefore produce substantial expected post-decision disappointment.","The paper supplies a general causal basis for concern about sweep-selected simulation results."],"publisher":"INFORMS","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"The Optimizer's Curse: Skepticism and Postdecision Surprise in Decision Analysis","url":"https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0451"},{"claims_supported":["A recognized standard already supplies a VVUQ framework for computational solid-mechanics models.","The standard is intended to help managers and practitioners assess and enhance model credibility.","General solid-mechanics VVUQ is adjacent practice, but the public description does not disclose the proposal's integrated search-ledger and sealed-promotion mechanism."],"publisher":"American Society of Mechanical Engineers","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"V&V 10-2019 (R2025): Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics","url":"https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/standard-for-verification-and-validation-in-computational-solid-mechanics/2019"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded four-source screen supports only an adjacent-prior-art disposition and coarse researchability. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, expert acceptance, implementation prevalence, or realized safety, cost, schedule, or engineering value."}