{"abstention_reason":null,"arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","candidate_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__sport_science__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","cell_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__sport_science","decision":"PROPOSAL","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","proposal":{"actors":["Cyclist experiencing an unexplained speed deficit","Cycling coach who controls training decisions","Sport scientist who interprets mechanical-performance measurements","Qualified bicycle mechanic who controls equipment inspection and return to service"],"affected_objective":"Preserve safe training and avoid misattributing an unexplained cycling-speed deficit to athlete fitness or effort while identifying where mechanical energy is being lost or mismeasured.","arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The mechanic may inspect the bicycle for obvious contact or damage and mount it on the calibrated rig; the sport scientist may conduct dead-weight calibration and brief submaximal input-output and coast-down measurements.","decision_authority":"The mechanic alone determines whether the bicycle is mechanically safe and authorizes equipment adjustments or return to service; the coach controls training changes; the sport scientist owns the provisional explanatory comparison but cannot diagnose the athlete or certify the bicycle.","excluded_actions":["Conducting maximal or exhaustive riding to amplify the discrepancy","Blaming athlete effort from speed or power traces","Returning a bicycle with suspected brake, bearing, wheel, or drivetrain faults to road use before mechanic approval","Making irreversible component replacements before the localized loss is reproduced","Using the working explanation for medical diagnosis, selection, discipline, or competition clearance"],"halt_rollback":"Stop pedaling and coast-down trials for abnormal noise, heat, vibration, wheel instability, component movement, pain, or unexpected resistance; dismount the bicycle from the rig and place it out of service until the mechanic evaluates it. Restore removed measurement hardware only under mechanic control."},"baseline":"The usual response to slower speed at apparently unchanged crank power is to attribute the deficit to wind, posture, fatigue, or poor form, inspect for obvious brake rub, and then swap or service components sequentially. This leaves crank-meter bias, drivetrain loss, wheel resistance, and field-only aerodynamic resistance weakly distinguished.","candidate_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__sport_science__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Protocol-matched field efforts show lower speed despite apparently unchanged crank power, cadence, rider position, tire pressure, and absence of reported symptoms.","The observation is compatible with a biased crank power meter, energy loss between crank and rear hub, wheel or brake resistance, field-only aerodynamic or surface resistance, or an unrecorded change in rider position; nominal power and speed alone cannot locate the loss.","A temporary physical energy-accounting rig independently calibrates crank torque with a dead weight and moment arm, measures downstream hub torque and wheel angular velocity, and measures unloaded deceleration on calibrated rollers.","A crank calibration error appears upstream before energy transmission; an enlarged crank-to-hub power gap localizes loss to the drivetrain; normal transmission with shortened coast-down localizes resistance near the wheel, tire, brake, or bearings; normal bench measurements preserve aerodynamic, surface, posture, and field-measurement rivals.","Temperature-indicating strips and mechanic inspection then test whether an abnormal resistance trace corresponds to localized friction rather than an unexplained numerical discrepancy.","The explanation is selected only when the physical signature materially outperforms its nearest rival; otherwise the result remains an action-limited tie and the bicycle is not modified beyond reversible inspection.","A dead-weight recheck, repeated submaximal run, known small resistance challenge, or controlled field comparison supplies a discriminating consequence that can confirm localization, expose instrument failure, or reopen the explanation.","Only the qualified mechanic acts on a localized equipment explanation; a normal rig result redirects inquiry toward field conditions or rider-state questions without treating those alternatives as established."],"cell_id":"abductive_explanation_selection__sport_science","consequence":"Without component-boundary measurements, staff may prescribe unnecessary fitness work, question athlete effort, replace sound equipment, or continue riding a bicycle with a developing friction or calibration fault.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"P1 explains an athlete-state jump anomaly through a documentary comparison and low-fatigue repeat measurement. This opportunity instead explains an on-bicycle energy-accounting discrepancy with a temporary physical rig that measures torque and resistance across mechanical boundaries; its explanandum, intervention, candidate causes, evidence signatures, authorized actor, and causal route are materially different.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Use a portable, mechanic-installed mechanical energy-accounting rig for bicycles showing a reproducible speed deficit at matched nominal crank power. The rig combines a dead-weight crank-calibration arm, an independently calibrated torque-measuring rear hub, wheel-speed instrumentation, load-matched rollers, and irreversible temperature-indicating strips on candidate friction points. Brief submaximal driven trials and unpowered coast-down trials create physically distinct signatures for upstream meter bias, drivetrain transmission loss, and wheel-side resistance. Manual readings are sufficient; software may record or plot them but does not create the discriminating effect.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without measurements on both sides of the drivetrain, meter bias and transmission loss can produce the same field-level speed discrepancy.","mechanism_slug":"differential_diagnosis_workup","role":"The dead-weight reference, crank input, hub output, and coast-down trace function as a mechanical differential that localizes competing hidden faults."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without explicit comparison to the nearest signature, any unusual reading could be used to justify the favored component story.","mechanism_slug":"inference_to_best_explanation_matrix","role":"Compares meter bias, drivetrain friction, wheel-side resistance, aerodynamic or surface resistance, and rider-position change against calibration, energy-gap, deceleration, heat, timing, and field-specific evidence."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a deliberately distinguishing physical challenge, correlated sensor error or ordinary rig variability could masquerade as fault localization.","mechanism_slug":"disconfirming_probe_plan","role":"Uses repeat calibration and a mechanic-approved small known resistance challenge to test whether the rig detects the predicted change at the correct mechanical boundary."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a retained physical and measurement record, later component service could turn a provisional localization into a hindsight claim of certainty.","mechanism_slug":"explanatory_case_memo","role":"Preserves the direct readings, setup, live rivals, defeasibility label, permitted action, and result that would require reopening the explanation."}],"nearest_rivals":["Sequentially replacing drivetrain, wheel, tire, and power-meter components until speed returns","Sending the cyclist directly for physiological testing despite matched submaximal crank output and no symptoms","Using ride-file software to infer aerodynamic drag or fatigue without an independent mechanical power boundary","Performing only a visual brake-rub and tire-pressure inspection","Repeating outdoor efforts until wind or surface variation happens to reveal a pattern"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The rig is falsified as a useful discriminator if blinded trials fail to detect a known crank-calibration offset and a mechanic-approved added resistance, localize either to the wrong mechanical boundary, or produce input-output gaps larger than the faults being investigated under unchanged setup.","problem_falsifier":"The opportunity is weakened if the speed deficit disappears under protocol-matched field replication, if ordinary measurement uncertainty fully covers it, or if the existing workflow already independently calibrates crank torque, measures hub output, quantifies coast-down resistance, preserves field-only rivals, and limits action accordingly.","risks":["Poor mounting or substitute-wheel installation could damage equipment or create a new resistance source.","Temperature indicators may miss intermittent friction or may warm from benign nearby heat.","Roller resistance may not reproduce road-surface rolling losses.","Independent torque instruments may share calibration error.","Short rig trials may fail to reproduce a load-dependent fault.","A normal bench result could be overinterpreted as evidence of athlete fatigue.","Added diagnostic hardware could detach if installed outside mechanic specifications."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Outdoor speed at matched nominal power is highly sensitive to wind, air density, surface, tire temperature, and subtle posture changes, so a field deficit may have no bicycle fault. The rig can localize measured mechanical loss but cannot establish an aerodynamic or athlete-state explanation when its mechanical results are normal."},"next_evidence_step":"On one bicycle with a reproducible protocol-matched deficit, have the mechanic verify safe mounting and obvious contact, then dead-weight-calibrate the crank and hub instruments. Conduct three brief submaximal steady efforts at the rider's ordinary tolerable load and three unpowered coast-downs with matched tire pressure and roller load. Before adding a mechanic-approved small resistance challenge, record the predicted upstream, transmission-gap, and deceleration signatures; repeat one trial to verify that the observed boundary changes as predicted. No maximal riding or road return occurs until the mechanic reviews the result.","observable_state":"Directly observed: across at least two protocol-matched field sessions, the cyclist's speed is below their recent reference at the same nominal crank power and cadence; recorded tire pressure and selected position markers are unchanged, and the athlete reports no unusual pain or exertional distress. Inferred, not observed: crank-meter bias, drivetrain friction, wheel or brake resistance, aerodynamic change, surface resistance, or rider-state change caused the deficit.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"When a cyclist becomes slower at apparently unchanged crank power, staff cannot tell from the ordinary ride trace whether the anomaly originates in the power measurement, mechanical transmission, wheel-side resistance, external conditions, or the rider. Intuitive attribution can convert an unresolved energy discrepancy into an equipment expense or an athlete-performance judgment.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Unlike ride-file interpretation, visual inspection, or sequential component replacement, paired physical measurements across the drivetrain plus coast-down resistance can produce boundary-specific traces while leaving field-only explanations explicitly unresolved when the bench signature is normal.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Material independence from P1 across problem, intervention, and causal path","Primary reliance on measurement instrumentation rather than governance or computation","Explicit counterfactual independence from software and organizational wrappers","Defeasible rival comparison with safe, discriminating physical probes"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Surprising Observation Record and Explanandum Boundary","domain_realization":"A reproducible loss of bicycle speed at matched nominal crank power and cadence, bounded to whether the discrepancy arises before, within, or after mechanical power transmission rather than presuming athlete underperformance."},{"archetype_element":"Observation–Interpretation Separation","domain_realization":"Field speed, nominal crank power, cadence, position markers, tire pressure, calibration loads, crank torque, hub torque, angular velocity, coast-down time, and temperature-strip changes remain separate from causal labels."},{"archetype_element":"Candidate Explanation Set","domain_realization":"Crank-meter bias, drivetrain loss, wheel or brake resistance, aerodynamic or surface resistance, rider-position change, and rider-state change remain live until their predicted physical signatures are compared."},{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Fit Criteria and Rival Comparison Record","domain_realization":"Candidates are compared by boundary location, energy conservation, repeatability, load dependence, deceleration behavior, localized heating, field specificity, and the number of unsupported assumptions required."},{"archetype_element":"Best-So-Far Explanation or Tie State","domain_realization":"A fault location is selected only when calibration, input-output, and coast-down signatures converge; normal or conflicting signatures preserve a tie among field-only and instrumentation rivals."},{"archetype_element":"Defeasibility Status and Action–Confidence Boundary","domain_realization":"The result is labeled provisional mechanical localization, unresolved discrepancy, or instrument-contested; it permits mechanic-led inspection but not athlete blame, medical inference, maximal testing, or uncontrolled road use."},{"archetype_element":"Discriminating Evidence Plan and Revision Trigger","domain_realization":"A known calibration load, a small approved resistance challenge, repeated coast-down, and post-service replication specify what should change at each boundary; failure of the predicted change reopens or rejects the explanation."}],"substrate_contract":{"counterfactual_independence":"If software, automated analysis, databases, dashboards, training rules, and team workflow are removed, the dead-weight reference, paired torque readings, wheel-speed reading, coast-down duration, and temperature indicators still reveal whether a discrepancy lies upstream, across the drivetrain, or at the wheel-side resistance boundary. Human-readable instruments and a paper calculation are sufficient.","forbidden_channel_audit":"Software may timestamp or plot raw measurements, and staff roles may constrain safe use, but neither selects the result through an algorithm nor creates the torque, angular-velocity, deceleration, or heat evidence. No incentive, training program, governance rule, database, information-routing system, model, or digital controller supplies the essential effect.","primary_allowed_process":"MEASUREMENT_INSTRUMENTATION"},"title":"Physical Drivetrain Boundary Test for Unexplained Cycling Speed Loss","version":0},"schema_version":1}