{"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"NASA Product Verification Process","overlap":"Requires approved verification procedures, controlled conditions, recorded data, discrepancy reporting, analysis of whether an anomaly reflects the product or test conduct, authorized review, and reverification after relevant changes.","remaining_difference":"It does not require reconstruction of every exploratory signal view, family-level false-discovery screening, exploratory evidence labels, or an independent fresh-evidence retest before a search-selected vibration peak may influence redesign.","source_ids":["SRC1"]},{"name":"NASA failure and anomaly review boards","overlap":"Provides a formal practice for identifying unexpected events, investigating causes, characterizing and dispositioning risk, selecting appropriate personnel, and documenting board activity.","remaining_difference":"The guidance does not calibrate a selected anomaly against the number of channels, bands, windows, filters, and thresholds searched, nor mandate frozen independent confirmation of a selected resonance.","source_ids":["SRC2"]},{"name":"Peak detection with multiplicity control","overlap":"Treats unknown peak locations as a multiple-testing problem and applies family-wise-error or false-discovery-rate control to peaks found in noisy sequences; spectrum research separately establishes that spurious peaks are expected across searched frequencies.","remaining_difference":"These methods do not provide an engineering anomaly ledger, qualification authority boundary, preregistered physical retest, or redesign-eligibility workflow for power-electronics enclosures.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}],"contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified by an applicable vibration-qualification procedure already requiring the combined complete attempted-look ledger, declared family-level multiplicity rule, exploratory status, frozen independent fresh-evidence retest, and authority-gated redesign eligibility, or by a compliant shadow pilot showing that these additions never change anomaly status relative to ordinary review.","contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a vibration anomaly selected from many signal views, the combined attempted-look ledger, family-level false-discovery triage, and frozen independent fresh-evidence retest will change which spectral spikes become eligible to influence redesign compared with ordinary verification and anomaly-review practice alone.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"rationale":"Four search lanes covered the proposal directly, spectral-peak and false-alarm terminology, NASA qualification and anomaly-review practices, and combinations of multiplicity control with retesting. Exactly four opened sources from NASA, arXiv, and the Royal Society/NCBI record were retained.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"bounded_next_test":{"rationale":"A shadow reconstruction of one completed unresolved run, followed by one sealed and pre-specified confirmation test, is bounded and produces observable status comparisons without redesigning or rejecting hardware.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PASS"},"distinct_testable_claim":{"rationale":"Adjacent sources separately cover anomaly governance, verification records, retesting, and multiplicity-aware peak detection, but the retained sources do not disclose their proposed combination as a vibration-qualification redesign gate. Whether it changes anomaly promotion is directly testable.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"rationale":"The proposed first step is retrospective shadow-mode analysis plus a controlled targeted test. Existing disposition remains intact, and consequential decisions remain with the chief engineer; NASA guidance likewise places discrepancies and changes under formal review.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"status":"PASS"},"supported_problem":{"rationale":"Primary research shows that searched noisy sequences and spectra generate false or spurious peaks and motivates set-level error control. NASA guidance confirms that verification anomalies can originate in test procedures or conduct and can lead to replanning, redesign, and reverification. Evidence is indirect for power-electronics enclosure practice and prevalence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PASS"}},"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","problem_evidence":{"finding":"The general mechanism is visible: searching unknown peak locations or broad spectral regions creates spurious-peak risk, while qualification discrepancies can propagate into redesign and reverification. The retained sources do not directly measure undisclosed analytic multiplicity or unnecessary enclosure redesigns in thermal-vibration qualification, so domain-specific evidence is partial.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED"},"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_light_screen_20260806","schema_version":1,"screen_id":"E13P111","screen_survival":true,"search_lanes":{"component_combination":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["engineering test anomaly independent retest confirmation vibration qualification procedure","pre-registration engineering experiments confirmatory testing vibration anomaly","multiple testing vibration damage detection false alarms","independent validation vibration anomaly retest structural resonance"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["vibration qualification testing multiple comparisons false discovery rate spectral peaks anomaly","vibration test anomaly retest pre-specified independent confirmation qualification","qualification test anomaly review board retest vibration NASA"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"products_practices_and_standards":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["MIL-STD-810 vibration test anomaly retest data channels review","site:nasa.gov vibration test anomaly data review retest resonance qualification handbook PDF","qualification test anomaly review board retest vibration NASA"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"no_result_note":null,"queries":["structural health monitoring false discovery rate multiple testing vibration sensors","spectral peak significance multiple frequencies vibration false alarm resonance","look elsewhere effect vibration resonance false alarm"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}},"sources":[{"claims_supported":["NASA verification uses approved procedures and controlled conditions.","Discrepancies must be recorded and assessed to distinguish product nonconformance from problems in verification conduct or procedure.","Verification findings can lead to redesign and reverification under formal review, and relevant work products should be retained."],"publisher":"National Aeronautics and Space Administration","source_id":"SRC1","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"5.3 Product Verification","url":"https://www.nasa.gov/reference/5-3-product-verification/"},{"claims_supported":["NASA provides formal guidance for failure and anomaly review boards.","The practice includes event identification, causal investigation, risk disposition, personnel selection, and documentation."],"publisher":"NASA Goddard Space Flight Center","source_id":"SRC2","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","title":"Guideline for Forming and Operating Failure Review Boards and Anomaly Review Boards (GSFC-HDBK-8700)","url":"https://standards.nasa.gov/standard/GSFC/GSFC-HDBK-8700"},{"claims_supported":["Detecting peaks at unknown locations in noisy sequences can be formulated as multiple testing.","Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg procedures can control family-wise error or false discovery rate under the studied assumptions.","The work does not establish physical causation or an engineering qualification workflow."],"publisher":"arXiv","source_id":"SRC3","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Peak Detection as Multiple Testing","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1924"},{"claims_supported":["Spectrum estimates can contain numerous spurious peaks.","Expected false-peak rates across frequency can inform whether observed peaks are abnormal.","The study supports the general spectral-search problem but is not specific to enclosure qualification."],"publisher":"The Royal Society","source_id":"SRC4","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","title":"Spacing and Shape of Random Peaks in Non-parametric Spectrum Estimates","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4032558/"}],"world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web screen found adjacent components and practices but no retained source disclosing the complete proposed protocol in power-electronics enclosure qualification. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, market size, expert acceptance, or realized value."}