{"actors":["Athlete with an unexpected performance change","Strength-and-conditioning coach who owns session-level training decisions","Sport scientist who maintains force-platform and workload records","Physiotherapist or sports-medicine clinician who evaluates symptoms within professional scope"],"affected_objective":"Preserve safe, informative training while determining why an athlete's countermovement-jump performance changed unexpectedly.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The sport scientist may review existing records and run one standardized, low-fatigue measurement check; the coach may maintain or temporarily reduce workload through an ordinary reversible adjustment.","decision_authority":"The coach controls reversible training changes, the sport scientist controls measurement-quality judgments, and only qualified clinical staff may assess injury or authorize clinical restrictions or return-to-play decisions.","excluded_actions":["Diagnosing injury from performance data alone","Using the working explanation to clear or exclude the athlete from competition","Increasing load to test the athlete through pain or worsening symptoms","Making punitive judgments about effort, motivation, or compliance","Changing long-term programming before the discriminating check is reviewed"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the probe and refer to qualified clinical staff if pain, neurological symptoms, acute swelling, instability, or further performance deterioration appears; restore the athlete's prior tolerable workload only through the responsible coach or clinician."},"baseline":"The usual response is an informal coach judgment—often fatigue, poor effort, or a bad trial—followed by immediate load adjustment or repetition, without preserving the raw observation, measurement uncertainty, rival explanations, or an explicit revision trigger.","candidate_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__sport_science__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["A countermovement-jump test shows a repeatable drop in jump height and increased left-right propulsion asymmetry relative to the athlete's own recent measurements.","Because force-platform outputs mix athlete state, movement strategy, and measurement conditions, the trace does not directly identify its cause.","The case record separates measured values and reported symptoms from interpretations, then compares accumulated neuromuscular fatigue, protective unloading, altered technique, and measurement artifact.","Timing, workload history, within-session repeatability, force-time-curve shape, symptoms, and setup checks determine whether one explanation accounts for the trace with fewer unsupported assumptions.","If accumulated fatigue fits best but does not materially outrank protective unloading, both remain live and action is limited to a reversible load adjustment plus a discriminating recheck.","The next standardized observation either restores the expected pattern, preserves it, or adds a symptom-linked trace, thereby strengthening, weakening, or splitting the working explanation.","Failed predictions or red-flag symptoms reopen the explanation and transfer the case to the appropriate coach, sport scientist, or clinician."],"cell_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__sport_science","consequence":"Without a structured comparison, the athlete may receive an unnecessary program change, continue loading an emerging problem, or be labeled as poorly motivated while the actual cause remains unresolved.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"No comparison with prior proposals was performed under runtime isolation; this candidate is specifically organized around athlete-specific force-time traces, measurement quality, reversible workload authority, and clinical escalation boundaries.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Introduce a one-page jump-anomaly explanation record used whenever an athlete shows both a repeatable jump-height departure from their own reference band and a new asymmetry pattern. It records raw observations separately from interpretations; compares accumulated fatigue, base-rate technical or recovery variation, platform or setup artifact, protective unloading from pain or tissue irritation, and another context-specific rival; labels the result as working, unresolved, or action-limited; and couples only reversible training decisions to a predefined standardized recheck and escalation trigger.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the matrix, the first familiar explanation can dominate without an auditable comparison against artifact, technique, or protective unloading.","mechanism_slug":"inference_to_best_explanation_matrix","role":"Compares each candidate against repeatability, timing, workload exposure, symptoms, force-time-curve coverage, setup integrity, and predicted next observations."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a case memo, measured traces and coach interpretations can merge during handoff, making later revision difficult.","mechanism_slug":"explanatory_case_memo","role":"Preserves the bounded explanandum, raw observations, selected or tied explanations, action limit, owner, and revision trigger."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a disconfirming probe, a plausible fatigue story may become self-sealing after any subsequent result.","mechanism_slug":"disconfirming_probe_plan","role":"Specifies a low-fatigue standardized recheck and the outcomes that would weaken fatigue, implicate measurement conditions, or require clinical assessment."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without an abduction log, successive training sessions may overwrite why the explanation changed and encourage hindsight certainty.","mechanism_slug":"abduction_log","role":"Records how the ranking changes after setup verification, recovery context, symptoms, and repeat force-time traces become available."}],"nearest_rivals":["A fixed threshold rule that automatically reduces training whenever jump height or asymmetry crosses a cutoff","A coach-only wellness conversation followed by an intuitive fatigue judgment","Immediate clinical screening of every anomalous jump result without first checking repeatability or measurement conditions","A formal fatigue hypothesis test requiring repeated observations before any provisional training decision"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is undermined if independent reviewers using the same case record routinely choose different leading explanations or probes, or if the prescribed recheck does not distinguish the recorded rivals better than the baseline workflow.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is weakened if anomalous jump traces are already handled with explicit observation–interpretation separation, preserved rivals, documented action limits, and revision-triggered probes, or if existing deterministic quality-control rules fully explain the trace.","risks":["Coaches may treat the ranked explanation as a diagnosis.","Extra documentation may delay simple measurement-quality corrections.","Repeated testing may add fatigue or create athlete anxiety.","Base-rate fatigue may be overfavored because it is familiar.","A rare but consequential injury-related explanation may be underweighted despite ambiguous symptoms.","Athletes may alter technique when they know asymmetry is being scrutinized."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Jump metrics can vary with technique, warm-up, device setup, and ordinary within-athlete noise, so a single apparent anomaly may not warrant explanation selection at all; the entry rule therefore requires repeatability and a changed pattern rather than one isolated value."},"next_evidence_step":"For one consenting athlete case, have the sport scientist verify calibration, protocol, footwear, warm-up, and trial quality; review only the preceding seven days of workload, recovery reports, and symptoms; then collect at most three standardized countermovement jumps after ordinary recovery. Complete the explanation matrix before viewing the recheck, prerecord what each candidate predicts, and stop immediately for symptoms or deterioration. This is a workflow-feasibility and discrimination check, not an effect estimate or clinical test.","observable_state":"Directly observed: across two valid trials in one scheduled session, jump height is below the athlete's recent protocol-matched reference band and propulsion asymmetry shifts toward one limb; the platform passes its routine status check. Reported: the athlete describes unusual heaviness but no pain at the initial check. Inferred, not observed: fatigue, protective unloading, technical change, inadequate recovery, or measurement artifact caused the pattern.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"When an athlete's force-platform jump profile unexpectedly shows both lower output and a new limb asymmetry, staff need a working explanation before the next training decision, but the trace is compatible with fatigue, altered technique, measurement conditions, inadequate recovery, or protective unloading. Informal interpretation can prematurely convert one plausible story into a training or health judgment.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Unlike an automatic threshold rule or an intuitive fatigue judgment, the proposed record makes a changed athlete-specific trace the explanandum, preserves measurement and health-related rivals, and permits only reversible action until a preregistered observation differentiates them.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Surprising Observation Record and Explanandum Boundary","domain_realization":"A protocol-matched drop in countermovement-jump height accompanied by a repeatable change in propulsion asymmetry, bounded to the current session and the athlete's own recent reference data."},{"archetype_element":"Observation–Interpretation Separation","domain_realization":"Raw jump metrics, force-time curves, trial validity, setup details, and athlete-reported symptoms are recorded separately from causal labels such as fatigue or protective unloading."},{"archetype_element":"Candidate Explanation Set","domain_realization":"Accumulated neuromuscular fatigue, ordinary recovery or technical variation, device or setup artifact, protective unloading, and a context-specific rival are retained for comparison."},{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Fit Criteria and Rival Comparison Record","domain_realization":"Candidates are compared on trace coverage, timing, workload coherence, mechanism plausibility, symptom consistency, repeatability, missing evidence, and predicted recheck pattern."},{"archetype_element":"Best-So-Far Explanation or Tie State","domain_realization":"The record names accumulated fatigue only if it materially fits better; otherwise fatigue and protective unloading or artifact remain explicitly tied."},{"archetype_element":"Defeasibility Status and Action–Confidence Boundary","domain_realization":"The output is labeled working and action-limited, supporting monitoring or a reversible load adjustment but not diagnosis, clearance, exclusion, or long-term programming change."},{"archetype_element":"Discriminating Evidence Plan and Revision Trigger","domain_realization":"A standardized low-fatigue recheck after setup verification and ordinary recovery tests rival predictions; persistent asymmetry, failed recovery prediction, new pain, or better-fitting evidence forces revision or clinical escalation."}],"title":"Defeasible Jump-Profile Explanation Record","version":0}