{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Microsoft Event Sourcing pattern","overlap":"Describes an append-only authoritative event store, immutable domain events, compensating corrections, replay, materialized read-only projections, historical reconstruction, event IDs, ordering, versioning, and duplicate-write controls.","remaining_difference":"It is a domain-general architecture pattern and does not specify composite-pressure-vessel qualification semantics, dual occurrence/record time, configuration and specimen applicability, frozen design-gate views, evidence frontiers, or designated engineering authority.","source_ids":["SRC4"]},{"name":"NIST System Lifecycle Handler digital thread","overlap":"Federates requirements, PLM/CAD/CAM, simulation, manufacturing, and quality artifacts; assigns global identities; links versions and relationships; supports traceability, change-impact analysis, consistency comparison, graph queries, and dashboards.","remaining_difference":"Its published architecture connects artifacts retained in authoritative repositories; it does not make bounded qualification events the canonical history or show disposable qualification views rebuilt by pinned projectors from an append-only, bitemporal correction lineage.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"Siemens Teamcenter 14.3","overlap":"Provides requirement history, links requirements to parts, processes and test cases, controlled verification packages, configuration/change management, BOM effectivity, parallel-change handling, and supplier-action history.","remaining_difference":"The retained first-party description does not establish that cross-tool qualification assertions are the sole governed history, that historical gate packages are deterministic event projections, or that views expose replay versions, processing frontiers, source coverage, and unresolved applicability disputes.","source_ids":["SRC3"]},{"name":"NASA hardware quality-assurance record and traceability requirements","overlap":"Requires lifecycle nonconformance records, configuration and material traceability, version integrity, qualification and verification results, as-built configuration evidence, deviations, waivers, remedial actions, supplier flow-down, and documentation of residual configuration or qualification traceability gaps.","remaining_difference":"These are required controlled records and processes, not an event-sourced implementation with dual time, compensating events, versioned projectors, frontier-visible decision-time views, and rebuild-and-diff reconciliation.","source_ids":["SRC1"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The contrast is falsified if an existing controlled PLM/digital-thread deployment already treats configuration-applicable qualification assertions and linked corrections as its authoritative append-only history and can reproducibly regenerate frozen decision-time and current qualification views—with declared projector version, knowledge frontier, source coverage, conflicts, and idempotent replay—without discretionary package reconstruction. It is also practically falsified for the pilot if the pinned projector cannot reproduce the signed historical gate or does not improve detection of the four seeded record conditions over the baseline review.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For composite pressure-vessel qualification, make governed, configuration-applicable engineering assertions—not linked artifact states—the canonical history, and make current and historical qualification packages disposable, versioned projections that disclose their knowledge frontier and can be deterministically rebuilt and diffed without rewriting that history.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"The bounded search covered direct COPV qualification and traceability language, digital-thread and historical terminology, PLM/product and NASA practices, and combinations of event sourcing, replay, configuration, test evidence, and bitemporality. Four opened sources span NASA, NIST/Intercax, Siemens, and Microsoft; phrase misses were not treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A two-week read-only reconstruction of one retired subassembly and completed review, capped at 40 records and four explicit fixtures, is bounded and reversible. It directly compares configuration, evidence inclusions/exclusions, corrections, and frontier against the signed package. NASA's record requirements supply relevant comparison fields, while Microsoft identifies replay, correction, ordering, versioning, duplication, and projection risks to test.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Digital-thread traceability and generic event sourcing are established separately, and Teamcenter substantially overlaps the configuration and verification workflow. The narrower conjunction remains testable: canonical qualification events plus deterministic, version-pinned, frontier-visible decision-time projections for a COPV gate. Failure to reconstruct the signed gate or to outperform baseline detection is observable.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"No retained source indicates that a read-only shadow reconstruction of archived records is prohibited. NASA requirements emphasize controlled roles, safety/mission-assurance concurrence, traceability, supplier permissions, and retention; the proposed pilot leaves authoritative records and operational decisions unchanged and reserves adoption to the designated authority.","source_ids":["SRC1"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"NASA explicitly requires uninterrupted configuration/material traceability, version integrity, qualification evidence, nonconformance history, and recording of residual qualification-traceability gaps. NIST describes heterogeneous repository silos and laborious cross-artifact connections, while Siemens markets traceability, controlled verification packages, and configuration history as product needs. These make the problem visible, although they do not empirically prove that the selected COPV program cannot reconstruct a past gate.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The evidence supports the general risk that qualification evidence, configuration, tests, deviations, and approvals distributed across lifecycle systems require explicit traceability and may retain gaps. It only partly supports the proposal's stronger factual premise because no retained source reports a measured COPV case where an earlier design-gate knowledge state could not be reconstructed from compliant controlled repositories.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P056","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["engineering digital thread event sourcing configuration qualification evidence","PLM bitemporal event sourcing digital thread qualification","digital thread event-based engineering change immutable ledger replayable views","site:learn.microsoft.com event sourcing pattern materialized views replay events versioning"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":"No retained direct result described a COPV qualification-event ledger combining canonical assertions, dual time, correction lineage, pinned projectors, frozen gate views, visible processing frontiers, and rebuild-and-diff reconciliation.","queries":["composite pressure vessel qualification configuration management traceability test evidence design review standard","\"composite overwrapped pressure vessel\" qualification records configuration traceability","NASA COPV qualification configuration traceability late test result corrected analysis nonconformance","COPV design qualification audit traceability material lot test report configuration problem"],"source_ids":["SRC1"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:nasa.gov configuration management design review records historical baseline traceability pressure vessel","site:siemens.com Teamcenter digital thread configuration history traceability test evidence","site:ntrs.nasa.gov composite overwrapped pressure vessel qualification configuration management evidence","composite pressure vessel failure investigation configuration records traceability qualification evidence"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["site:nist.gov digital thread traceability configuration history engineering artifacts","\"decision-time\" \"digital thread\" engineering configuration evidence","site:eventstore.com event sourcing immutable events projections rebuild official","engineering configuration status accounting qualification evidence historical baseline"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["NASA hardware QA requires lifecycle recording of nonconformances and efficient traceability to material, component, subsystem configuration, quality pedigree, compliance, and qualification failures.","Acceptance data include as-built configuration traceability, inspections and tests, deviations and waivers, remedial actions, and residual configuration or qualification traceability gaps.","Project and safety/mission-assurance authorities govern QA requirements and supplier flow-down."],"publisher":"National Aeronautics and Space Administration","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","title":"NPR 8735.2C, Chapter 4 — Hardware Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Programs and Projects","url":"https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8735_002C_&page_name=Chapter4"},{"claims_supported":["The proof-of-concept System Lifecycle Handler connects heterogeneous requirements, PLM/CAD/CAM, simulation, machine, and quality artifacts across repositories.","It proposes global artifact identifiers, version search, relationship registration, traceability, impact analysis, consistency comparison, graph queries, and dashboard views.","The paper identifies information silos, heterogeneous identifiers, interoperability, and laborious manual connection creation as digital-thread problems."],"publisher":"National Institute of Standards and Technology and Intercax","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"System Lifecycle Handler — Spinning a Digital Thread for Manufacturing","url":"https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=924828"},{"claims_supported":["Teamcenter tracks requirement changes and comments as history and links requirements to parts, manufacturing processes, tasks, and test cases.","It offers controlled verification packages, configuration/change processes, BOM effectivity, parallel-change merging, and review of released versus work-in-process changes.","Supplier Connect claims secure product-data collaboration with traceability and history of supplier actions."],"publisher":"Siemens Digital Industries Software","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","title":"Discover what's new in Teamcenter 14.3!","url":"https://blogs.sw.siemens.com/teamcenter/whats-new-in-teamcenter-14-3/"},{"claims_supported":["Event sourcing stores domain changes in an append-only authoritative event store and reconstructs state by replay.","Read-only materialized projections can be regenerated from immutable events; compensating events preserve correction history.","The guidance covers event intent, versioning, upcasting, ordering, duplicate identifiers, eventual consistency, schema evolution, and the pattern's substantial complexity and migration risks."],"publisher":"Microsoft","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Event Sourcing pattern — Azure Architecture Center","url":"https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/event-sourcing"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded four-source public-web screen found substantial adjacent art in NASA configuration/qualification controls, manufacturing digital threads, commercial PLM, and generic event sourcing, but no opened source disclosed the full COPV-specific combination. That result establishes only coarse researchability and an unresolved contrastive claim; it does not establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, implementation feasibility, or realized safety or economic value."}