{"actors":["Athlete whose practiced serve pattern does not transfer consistently to competition","Skill-acquisition coach who controls practice-task design","Performance analyst who codes serve, opponent-position, and environmental traces","Sport psychologist who alone may assess or deliver psychological support within professional scope"],"affected_objective":"Preserve fair athlete support and informative skill practice while determining why a well-rehearsed serve pattern breaks down in particular competition contexts.","arm":"ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The performance analyst may audit existing protocol-matched practice and match video, and the coach may conduct one low-volume, non-punitive practice block that counterbalances static and late-changing returner positions.","decision_authority":"The analyst controls coding-quality judgments, the coach controls reversible practice-task changes, the athlete controls participation in the probe, and only a qualified sport psychologist or clinician may assess psychological or health conditions.","excluded_actions":["Diagnosing anxiety, choking, injury, or a motor disorder from performance traces","Using the working explanation for selection, discipline, contract, or public-evaluation decisions","Requiring disclosure of private psychological information","Adding physically demanding repetitions or changing competition technique before reviewing the probe","Treating intentional tactical adaptation as execution failure without athlete confirmation"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the probe if the athlete reports pain, marked distress, dizziness, or loss of voluntary participation; return to the ordinary tolerable practice task and refer health or psychological concerns to the appropriately qualified professional."},"baseline":"The comparator response labels the practice-to-competition discrepancy as poor execution or pressure sensitivity and prescribes more repetition, without separating observed serve events from inferred mental or motor causes, preserving strategic and contextual rivals, or specifying evidence that would reverse the label.","candidate_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__sport_science__ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Protocol-matched records show that a target serve is executed reliably in static practice yet fails disproportionately during match points containing late changes in the returner's position.","Because competition simultaneously changes perceptual cues, tactical incentives, environmental conditions, and evaluative pressure, the observed transfer gap does not reveal which hidden process produced it.","An event-level record separates ball landing, speed, toss, target call, returner movement, score state, conditions, and athlete report from interpretations such as choking or inadequate learning.","The record compares a practice-representativeness gap, pressure-related attentional disruption, intentional tactical adjustment, environmental interference, physical limitation, and coding error using timing, trace coverage, mechanism coherence, missing evidence, and rival predictions.","A practice-representativeness explanation is selected only if errors track late opponent cues across contexts more closely than score pressure, conditions, symptoms, or coding uncertainty; otherwise the closest explanations remain tied.","The coach may then alter only the cue structure of a small practice block while preserving ordinary technique and physical demand, and the athlete may decline without consequence.","Counterbalanced trials with static versus late-changing returner positions produce observations that can strengthen the cue-dependence explanation, favor a pressure or tactical rival, or reveal that the original discrepancy was unstable.","A failed prediction, new symptom, athlete-reported tactical intent, or coding disagreement reopens the explanation and redirects the case to the appropriate coach, analyst, psychologist, or clinician."],"cell_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__sport_science","consequence":"An unsupported explanation can direct practice toward the wrong constraint, convert adaptive tactical behavior into an execution fault, or attach a psychological label to the athlete without discriminating evidence.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity concerns competition transfer of a learned perceptual-motor skill and the interpretation of opponent-contingent behavior. Its intervention analyzes event-linked video and manipulates informational cues in practice, rather than explaining force-platform output, asymmetry, recovery state, or workload response.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Introduce a competition-transfer explanation memo for cases where a protocol-matched skill succeeds in practice but breaks down in identifiable competition situations. The memo bounds the discrepant events, keeps observations separate from causal interpretations, compares representative-practice mismatch, pressure-related attentional disruption, intentional tactical adaptation, environmental interference, physical limitation, and coding artifact, and records either a best-so-far explanation or an unresolved tie. It permits only a reversible, athlete-consented manipulation of practice cues and requires preregistered outcomes that would revise the explanation.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the matrix, a vivid pressure narrative can outrank contextual, tactical, physical, or coding explanations without an explicit comparison.","mechanism_slug":"inference_to_best_explanation_matrix","role":"Compares candidates against event timing, opponent cues, score state, serve kinematics, environmental conditions, athlete report, missing evidence, and predicted trial patterns."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the memo, observed ball and opponent traces can be blended with judgments about confidence, intention, or learning during coaching handoff.","mechanism_slug":"explanatory_case_memo","role":"Preserves the explanandum, direct observations, interpretations, nearest rivals, defeasibility label, action boundary, explanation owner, and revision triggers."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a disconfirming probe, any success or failure in later practice could be assimilated into the favored story.","mechanism_slug":"disconfirming_probe_plan","role":"Counterbalances static and late-changing returner cues and prerecords patterns that would weaken cue dependence or favor pressure, strategy, environment, or unstable measurement."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a longitudinal record, later match outcomes can overwrite why the explanation changed and create hindsight certainty.","mechanism_slug":"abduction_log","role":"Tracks revisions after video recoding, athlete confirmation of target intent, representative practice trials, and subsequent protocol-matched observations."}],"nearest_rivals":["Prescribing additional blocked repetitions on the assumption that the skill is insufficiently learned","Treating every competition error as evidence of pressure-related choking","Using match success percentage alone to classify the problem without reconstructing opponent and target context","Beginning a formal performance-anxiety test before establishing whether the anomalous events are opponent-contingent"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is undermined if blinded analysts cannot reliably identify the bounded events or candidate-predicted patterns, or if counterbalancing late opponent cues does not discriminate the recorded explanations better than the comparator response.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is weakened if the practice and match tasks are already context-matched, athlete intention and opponent cues are routinely coded, rival explanations and action limits are preserved, or the apparent discrepancy disappears under protocol-matched recoding.","risks":["Video coding may misidentify the athlete's intended target or the timing of opponent movement.","The athlete may experience the probe as an evaluation despite its non-punitive design.","A coach may convert a provisional explanation into a stable psychological label.","Manipulated returner cues may not reproduce competition perception or stakes.","Environmental and tactical factors may remain entangled with opponent movement.","Additional serving repetitions may create unnecessary physical exposure if volume limits are ignored."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Practice and match outcomes may differ because of ordinary sampling variation or incomparable task constraints rather than a hidden transfer problem; the entry rule therefore requires protocol-matched event definitions, verified target intent, and a recurring context-linked discrepancy before explanation selection begins."},"next_evidence_step":"With the athlete's consent, have two coders independently review existing practice and match video for target call, ball outcome, toss location, serve speed, returner position and movement timing, score context, and environmental conditions. Before a low-volume session, prerecord what each candidate predicts. Then alternate otherwise matched trials with a static returner and a returner making a late positional change, retain ordinary rest and technique instructions, solicit only a brief voluntary intent report, and compare the event pattern without estimating an effect size or making a psychological assessment.","observable_state":"Directly observed: the same target-directed serve pattern lands as intended during protocol-matched static practice but misses in a recurring subset of match events where the returner changes position late; available ball-speed and toss traces do not show an obvious global deterioration. Reported: the athlete noticed some late positional changes and reports no pain during the reviewed events. Inferred, not observed: perceptual recalibration, evaluative-pressure disruption, deliberate tactical adjustment, environmental interference, physical limitation, or coding error caused the discrepancy.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"When a learned sport skill transfers from practice to competition unevenly, coaches must decide what to investigate or change, yet the same event pattern can reflect unrepresentative practice cues, pressure-related attentional changes, intentional tactics, environmental conditions, physical limitation, or coding error. Prematurely naming one cause can misdirect practice and stigmatize adaptive or unexplained behavior.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Unlike additional blocked practice, an automatic choking label, or outcome-only classification, the memo treats the context-linked transfer discrepancy as the explanandum, preserves tactical and measurement rivals, and allows a practice change only as a reversible discriminating probe.","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 serve succeeds in static practice but breaks down in recurring match events containing a late opponent-position cue; only those target-confirmed events constitute the explanandum."},{"archetype_element":"Observation-Interpretation Separation","domain_realization":"Ball landing, speed, toss, target call, returner movement, score state, conditions, and athlete report are recorded separately from labels such as choking, cue dependence, or tactical adaptation."},{"archetype_element":"Candidate Explanation Set","domain_realization":"Representative-practice mismatch, pressure-related attentional disruption, intentional tactical adjustment, environmental interference, physical limitation, coding artifact, and a context-specific rival remain visible."},{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Fit Criteria and Rival Comparison Record","domain_realization":"Candidates are compared by event coverage, temporal alignment, cross-context coherence, mechanism plausibility, athlete-confirmed intention, missing traces, required assumptions, and discriminating predictions."},{"archetype_element":"Best-So-Far Explanation or Tie State","domain_realization":"Cue dependence is selected only if it materially outperforms pressure and tactical rivals; otherwise the memo preserves a ranked plurality and declares the cause unresolved."},{"archetype_element":"Defeasibility Status and Action-Confidence Boundary","domain_realization":"The result is labeled working and action-limited, supporting a consented cue-variation probe but not psychological diagnosis, athlete selection, discipline, or wholesale technique reconstruction."},{"archetype_element":"Discriminating Evidence Plan and Revision Trigger","domain_realization":"Counterbalanced static and late-changing returner trials test candidate-specific predictions; absent cue-linked replication, confirmed tactical intent, coder disagreement, distress, pain, or a better-fitting trace forces revision or referral."}],"title":"Competition-Transfer Explanation Memo for Opponent-Contingent Skill Errors","version":0}