{"actors":["Chief engineer whose approval signature is focal in the failure review","Pressure-vessel stress and materials engineers","Manufacturing engineers and technicians","Composite-material supplier","Qualification-test operators and instrumentation engineers","Configuration-control and requirements-management staff","Program manager and schedule-control staff","Independent safety and reliability reviewers","Design authority and certification board"],"affected_objective":"Select corrective actions that address the causes of a composite pressure-vessel test article rupturing below its specified proof pressure while preserving traceable design and certification authority.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The independent safety lead may build a read-only shadow attribution annex for one completed qualification failure using existing, access-controlled records and interviews; the annex cannot enter the official disposition without board review.","decision_authority":"The designated design authority and certification board retain authority over failure disposition, corrective actions, configuration changes, release, and certification; personnel or legal accountability remains with the separately authorized processes.","excluded_actions":["Changing requirements, drawings, materials, tooling, test limits, or released configurations","Re-running a hazardous test or altering test hardware","Assigning discipline, blame, liability, compensation, or professional fault","Treating a counterfactual as observed evidence","Using source visibility, job title, or approval signature as a proxy for causal magnitude","Releasing supplier-proprietary, export-controlled, personal, or safety-sensitive information beyond existing access rules"],"halt_rollback":"Suspend the shadow annex if evidence provenance cannot be maintained, protected information crosses an authorization boundary, interview participation becomes coercive, or the annex begins influencing an active disposition without board review; return to the existing review workflow and preserve or dispose of the draft under the applicable records policy."},"baseline":"The existing failure review follows the physical root-cause tree and approval chain, centering the chief engineer who signed the thickness-reduction change. It records component faults and corrective actions but does not systematically distinguish the occupant's choices from role authority, schedule and procurement constraints, supplier variability, distributed implementation, or configuration-control conditions.","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__engineering_design__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["The rupture and comparison configuration are fixed as the explanatory target, preventing broader judgments about the entire program or an individual's general competence.","Frozen change records, analyses, test data, deviations, communications, and interviews identify actions, omissions, timing, and provenance across design, supply, manufacturing, testing, and governance.","Each contribution is classified as initiating, enabling, constraining, selecting, amplifying, executing, detecting, blocking, or legitimating rather than collapsed into the approval signature.","The position map separates authority supplied by the chief-engineer role from choices made by its occupant and identifies how information, resources, incentives, and schedule pressure shaped the available options.","A bounded actor-substitution probe asks how a qualified alternate occupant, with the same information and authority, might have handled the decision; assumptions and uncertainty remain explicit.","A bounded structural-relaxation probe varies one documented condition at a time, such as the schedule gate, supplier-acceptance rule, configuration check, or escalation path, to test whether the focal decision could still propagate to the rupture.","Reviewers compare the actor and structural models against the observed physical failure chain and identify evidence that supports, conflicts with, or cannot discriminate between them.","The certification board receives a bounded synthesis connecting proposed corrective-action targets to supported mechanisms while keeping causal attribution separate from blame, liability, and design authority."],"cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__engineering_design","consequence":"Approval-centric attribution can direct corrective action toward replacing or retraining one approver while leaving information-flow, supplier-control, configuration, schedule, or implementation mechanisms unaddressed; a purely structural account can conversely erase a consequential choice or missed escalation by the role occupant.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not assessed against other proposals because runtime isolation prohibits inspecting them; this candidate is internally defined by a single, bounded pressure-vessel qualification failure and a read-only attribution annex attached to the existing disposition process.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Add a Causal-Role Attribution Annex to the completed rupture review before corrective-action approval. For the fixed event, the annex records why the chief engineer became focal, inventories distributed actors, cross-tabulates dated actions and structural conditions with evidence and causal roles, maps position and information pathways, aligns the local decision timeline with program-level constraints, and tests bounded actor-substitution and structural-relaxation counterfactuals. It reports supported, competing, and unresolved causal models without assigning numerical causal shares or changing the official physical root-cause, personnel-accountability, or certification processes.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the matrix, approval signatures and abundant executive records can again stand in for evidence linking particular actions and conditions to the rupture.","mechanism_slug":"actor_structure_evidence_matrix","role":"Cross-tabulates actor actions, structural conditions, dates, evidence provenance, causal roles, and observed effects for the fixed failure."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without cross-level tracing, the review can jump directly from a design approval to rupture or from schedule pressure to rupture without showing how the effect passed through analysis, supply, manufacturing, configuration, and test execution.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_across_levels","role":"Connects individual decisions to team execution, organizational controls, the manufactured article, and the physical failure sequence."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without substitution, the review cannot distinguish effects of the chief-engineer position from effects conditional on the particular occupant's interpretation, timing, or escalation choice.","mechanism_slug":"counterfactual_actor_substitution_probe","role":"Tests absence, delay, or a qualified alternate occupant under the same documented information, authority, and timing constraints."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without structural relaxation, constraints may be named as background context but their enabling or amplifying roles cannot be tested against the focal actor's contribution.","mechanism_slug":"structural_constraint_relaxation_probe","role":"Varies documented schedule, supplier-control, configuration, resource, and escalation conditions one at a time while holding the failure target fixed."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without plural synthesis review, the annex can harden into a new monocausal narrative or leak causal prominence into blame and certification authority.","mechanism_slug":"plural_causal_synthesis_review","role":"Retains competing models, conflicting evidence, uncertainty, and the boundary between causal explanation and responsibility decisions."}],"nearest_rivals":["Conventional root-cause analysis or fault-tree analysis, which traces physical and procedural failure paths but may not test person-versus-position attribution","FRACAS or corrective-and-preventive-action review, which manages failure disposition and recurrence controls but need not model actor replaceability or narrative focality","RACI or approval-chain review, which identifies formal responsibility but does not establish causal contribution","Systems-engineering decision records, which preserve alternatives and rationale but may omit distributed execution, structural counterfactuals, and later attribution bias","STPA-style control analysis, which models unsafe control and constraints but does not by itself separate a focal occupant's contribution from position selection and narrative prominence"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"For the frozen case, the annex is not useful if independent reviewers can populate its evidence links and counterfactual assumptions yet it identifies no causally relevant actor, condition, interaction, uncertainty, or corrective-action target omitted or conflated by the existing review, and it does not improve reviewer agreement about which claims are supported versus merely role-based.","problem_falsifier":"The proposed problem is absent if the existing official review already fixes the outcome and horizon, traces actor-specific actions through the physical mechanism, distinguishes person from formal position, includes distributed implementers and constraints, tests bounded actor and structural counterfactuals, preserves alternative models, and separates causal attribution from personnel and certification decisions.","risks":["Interviews may become retrospective blame narratives or be chilled by employment concerns.","Sparse or selectively retained records may make distributed work less visible than signed approvals.","Counterfactuals may acquire unwarranted certainty or be chosen to support a preferred disposition.","The annex may duplicate safety analysis and add delay without discriminating among causal models.","Access to supplier, personnel, or controlled technical data may exceed the analyst's authorization.","A balanced presentation may be mistaken for equal causal weight despite asymmetric evidence.","Participants may use causal prominence to imply competence, blame, liability, or certification entitlement."] ,"strongest_counterevidence":"If timestamped records show that the chief engineer alone received the relevant warning, possessed unilateral authority, knowingly rejected the validated safer option within the decision window, and downstream actors implemented the order without independent discretion or control failure, the actor-centered account would be stronger than the proposed interaction-focused diagnosis."},"next_evidence_step":"Select one already-closed pressure-vessel qualification failure and freeze its outcome, comparison configuration, and decision window. Two authorized reviewers independently construct the shadow annex from the same limited packet: requirements and change records, analysis revisions, material acceptance data, manufacturing traveler, configuration audit, test telemetry, meeting decisions, and up to six role-based interviews. Compare their annexes with the official review for provenance coverage, person-position separation, omitted causal links, conflicting models, and corrective-action targets; stop after this single case and seek board authorization before any operational use.","observable_state":"A qualification article ruptured below its specified proof pressure after a wall-thickness reduction. The official review foregrounds the chief engineer's signed approval, while the accessible record contains additional timed states: analysis assumptions and revisions, supplier lot properties, manufacturing deviations, configuration status, test telemetry, escalation messages, schedule gates, and the actions or omissions of design, manufacturing, supplier, test, and governance roles. The candidate begins without assuming which of these states was causal.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"After a safety-critical composite pressure-vessel qualification failure, the engineering organization treats the chief engineer's approval signature as the main explanation for the rupture, while an opposing account treats schedule and supplier constraints as determinative. Neither account specifies how the occupant's decisions, formal position, distributed engineering and manufacturing work, configuration controls, material variability, and program constraints interacted during the bounded change-and-test window, so corrective-action selection rests on unresolved actor-versus-structure attribution.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"For this bounded failure, a read-only annex that jointly tests actor substitution and structural relaxation can discriminate approval-based focality from mechanism-supported contribution in ways not supplied by a physical root-cause tree, approval map, or decision record alone; whether it changes any supported corrective-action target remains an empirical question.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial bounded hypothesis; no novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect-size claim is made."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version maps agency/structure attribution to a single composite pressure-vessel qualification failure."],"evidence_changes":["No external or prior-art evidence consulted; all proposed inputs are case-local records and bounded interviews."],"operational_changes":["Initial shadow-mode procedure leaves disposition, configuration, personnel, and certification authority unchanged."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete actors and observable engineering state","Explicit consequence and intervention","Structural and mechanism mappings with removal tests","Bounded causal chain and baseline","Nearest-rival distinctions and remaining contrastive claim","Authority limits, safeguards, falsifiers, risks, and first evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explanatory Target, Scope, and Use","domain_realization":"Rupture below specified proof pressure, compared with the prior accepted configuration, limited to the thickness-change through qualification-test window and used only to inform corrective-action review."},{"archetype_element":"Focal Actor and Collective Inventory","domain_realization":"Records why the approving chief engineer is focal while including analysts, supplier, manufacturing, test, configuration, program, safety, and certification actors."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Condition and Path Map","domain_realization":"Maps design authority, schedule gates, procurement terms, supplier-acceptance rules, analysis tools, configuration controls, escalation channels, resources, and inherited design assumptions."},{"archetype_element":"Agency Contribution Trace and Causal Role Classification","domain_realization":"Links dated decisions, omissions, warnings, interpretations, approvals, fabrication steps, checks, and test actions to initiating, enabling, constraining, executing, detecting, blocking, or legitimating roles."},{"archetype_element":"Opportunity, Constraint, and Selection Map","domain_realization":"Separates the authority and information supplied by the chief-engineer position from the occupant's use of that position and from organizational selection into it."},{"archetype_element":"Counterfactual Actor Substitution Test","domain_realization":"Considers a qualified alternate occupant, absence, or delayed approval under the same documented information, authority, coalition, and time window."},{"archetype_element":"Structural Counterfactual and Constraint Test","domain_realization":"Tests whether changing one documented supplier-control, schedule, configuration, resource, or escalation condition would interrupt the traced path while holding the focal actor constant."},{"archetype_element":"Cross-Scale Actor–Structure Interaction Map","domain_realization":"Aligns individual judgments, team analyses, organizational controls, supplier and shop-floor execution, test-article state, and the physical rupture mechanism."},{"archetype_element":"Attribution Uncertainty, Responsibility Boundary, and Review Rule","domain_realization":"Publishes competing models and unresolved evidence, disclaims blame and certification authority, and triggers review for material new records or a proposed consequential use."}],"title":"Causal-Role Attribution Annex for a Pressure-Vessel Qualification Failure","version":0}