{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"ASQ lines-of-evidence matrix for root-cause investigation","overlap":"Lists observations, generates potential-cause hypotheses, ranks the hypothesis that best explains the failure, and updates the matrix as new data arrive.","remaining_difference":"The source does not describe a mandatory pre-engineering-change gate, unresolved-tie output, explicit authority limits, revision triggers, or a configuration-preserving probe requirement.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"Procedure for assessing failure explanations","overlap":"Structures engineering-failure explanations to expose weaknesses, compare competing explanations, and inform redesign; it is demonstrated on mechanical and civil failure cases.","remaining_difference":"It assesses explanations through structural equations and counterfactual dependence rather than prescribing the proposal's signed fit matrix, action-limited status, pre-change gate, authority boundary, and append-only update log.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"NASA mishap investigation procedure","overlap":"Requires evidence preservation, restraint from premature conclusions, testing hypothetical causes against evidence, qualified conclusions pending confirmation, signed group reports, retention of rejected findings, structured exploration of causative possibilities, and an undetermined category when no cause is established.","remaining_difference":"It is a mishap-investigation regime rather than a narrowly scoped gate attached before a safety-relevant engineering-change request, and it does not require the proposed nearest-rival fit matrix or reversible-inquiry-only status label.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"Kepner-Tregoe Problem Analysis","overlap":"Defines the problem factually, identifies multiple possible causes, evaluates each against known facts, selects a most-probable cause for further testing, and confirms the true cause before closure.","remaining_difference":"It expects eventual confirmation of one true cause and does not establish the proposal's mandatory unresolved-tie option, immutable observation section, explanation-change log, or formal separation of inquiry permission from redesign authority.","source_ids":["SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The remaining claim would be falsified if an existing aerospace anomaly or configuration-control procedure were found that, before a cause-dependent engineering change, already requires a fixed observation record, explicit comparison of a favored explanation with named rivals, a recorded tie when discrimination fails, discriminating predictions and revision triggers, and an authority-limited reversible probe.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"Existing sources establish most component practices, but this screen did not find the specific combination as a mandatory pre-engineering-change control: a single anomalous trace set must justify a best-so-far explanation over its nearest rival or remain an unresolved tie, while the result authorizes only reversible inquiry and preserves subsequent ranking revisions.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four search lanes covered the proposal directly, historical RCA/problem-analysis terminology, standards and established practices, and component combinations. Four opened sources span four publishers and include primary research, official NASA guidance, a professional practice article, and a first-party methodology.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"The proposed blind comparison is limited to existing records and nondestructive inspection of two identified non-flight assemblies, ends with one signed memo, and forbids retest, disassembly, torque changes, and drawing changes. NASA guidance supports preserving evidence and using later research or tests to confirm qualified conclusions.","source_ids":["SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Although competing-cause matrices, structured explanation assessment, qualified conclusions, and hypothesis testing are prior practices, the mandatory pre-change combination with a tie output, explicit nearest rival, reversible-action boundary, and revision log is distinguishable and can be tested by inspecting gate records and independent-reviewer performance.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The first test is nondestructive and configuration-preserving, quarantined hardware remains controlled, calibration and identity failures trigger a halt, and redesign or disposition remains with the designated authorities. This is consistent with NASA's emphasis on evidence control, specialist participation, and assignment of corrective-action responsibility.","source_ids":["SRC3"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"The sources recognize the need to keep factual problem descriptions and evidence ahead of causal conclusions, explore multiple possible causes, test hypotheses against observations, preserve rejected findings, and allow qualified or undetermined outcomes. That supports the proposed failure mode conceptually, but the retained sources do not measure how often engineering-change records actually embed the first plausible story.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The risk of premature or weakly discriminated causal selection is visible in established guidance that explicitly warns against conclusions before evidence analysis and prescribes multiple-cause generation, evidence-based comparison, further testing, and undetermined or qualified conclusions. Evidence for the claimed prevalence in qualification-change workflows is indirect rather than measured.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P044","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["engineering anomaly review observations hypotheses discriminating tests configuration control root cause aerospace","fault investigation hypothesis matrix alternative explanations engineering failure analysis","\"competing explanations\" \"failure analysis\" redesign engineering"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["root cause analysis competing hypotheses evidence engineering anomaly investigation handbook","engineering failure explanation matrix observations rival hypotheses redesign"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["AS9100 nonconformity root cause corrective action evidence change control standard","NASA mishap investigation hypothetical causes evidence qualified conclusions corrective action","Kepner-Tregoe Problem Analysis possible causes test most probable cause"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["lines of evidence matrix root cause analysis observations hypotheses","possible causes most probable cause confirm true cause problem analysis","mishap investigation logic model hypothetical causes undetermined cause"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["A lines-of-evidence matrix can begin with observations, incorporate potential-cause hypotheses, prioritize the hypothesis that best explains the failure, and be updated as new data arise."],"publisher":"American Society for Quality","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","title":"Try This Today: 'X' Marks the Spot","url":"https://asq.org/quality-progress/articles/try-this-today-x-marks-the-spot?id=13869b6d94474770bcfab48a3735b82c"},{"claims_supported":["Published research proposes structuring engineering-failure explanations to expose weaknesses, compare competing explanations, and support redesign recommendations.","The procedure is illustrated with mechanical and civil engineering failure cases."],"publisher":"Cambridge University Press","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Procedure for assessing the quality of explanations in failure analysis","url":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ai-edam/article/abs/procedure-for-assessing-the-quality-of-explanations-in-failure-analysis/4ACAEC331448137A5B79BC55C2D05A83"},{"claims_supported":["Investigators should preserve and consolidate evidence and refrain from conclusions until evidence is collected and analyzed.","NASA describes posing hypothetical causes and testing them through evidence, permits qualified conclusions subject to later confirmation, retains rejected findings, and provides an undetermined category.","Corrective-action responsibility and tracking are assigned explicitly."],"publisher":"National Aeronautics and Space Administration","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"NPR 8621.1 NASA Procedures and Guidelines for Mishap Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping","url":"https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayAll.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8621_0001_&page_name=ALL"},{"claims_supported":["Kepner-Tregoe Problem Analysis uses a factual problem description, identification of possible causes, evaluation against known facts, selection of a most-probable cause for testing, and confirmation of true cause.","The method asks whether cause is unknown and whether it must be known before meaningful action."],"publisher":"Kepner-Tregoe","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"How 5 Whys and Fishbone Diagrams Relate to KT Problem Analysis","url":"https://kepner-tregoe.com/blogs/how-5-whys-and-fishbone-diagrams-relate-to-kt-problem-analysis/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded four-source public-web screen establishes only coarse researchability and adjacent prior art. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, realized value, or the absence of relevant proprietary, paywalled, classified, organization-specific, or differently indexed procedures."}