{"abstention_reason":null,"arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__sport_science__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__sport_science","decision":"PROPOSAL","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","proposal":{"actors":["Stroke-seat rower, the focal actor because race commentary and the performance review credit that athlete with transforming the crew's starts","Three continuing rowers whose force production and synchronization enact or resist the stroke rhythm","Qualified substitute stroke-seat rower used in bounded occupant-substitution trials","Coxswain who issues start commands and relays cadence but does not determine the measured attribution","Lead rowing coach who selected the lineup and may have shaped the focal narrative","Boat technician who installs and verifies mechanically equivalent rigging configurations","Biomechanist who calibrates strain-gauged oarlocks, seat-position transducers, hull accelerometers, and timing gates","Sports-medicine staff who set exertion limits and stop criteria","Athletes' representative and performance-review panel who govern consent and permitted use"],"affected_objective":"Explain the conditional contribution of a focal stroke-seat rower to an elite coxed four's improvement in acceleration and speed over the first 100 metres, separating athlete-specific execution from stroke-seat position, crew synchronization, and mechanical rigging effects for technique and equipment learning—not selection, contracts, praise, or blame.","arm":"SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The boat technician and biomechanist may bench-calibrate the removable instrumented oarlocks, seat transducers, hull accelerometer, and timing gates and verify both rigging configurations without athletes aboard; athlete trials require subsequent voluntary consent, medical clearance, and water-safety approval.","decision_authority":"The independent sport-science review lead owns the bounded causal synthesis; the boat technician certifies mechanical configurations, sports-medicine staff control exertion safety, each athlete controls participation, and coaches or employment authorities must make selection and contract decisions under separate standards.","excluded_actions":["Changing crew selection, contracts, rankings, or competition entries from provisional attribution findings","Exceeding certified rigging ranges or manufacturer load limits","Using an athlete's causal prominence as proof of merit, fault, leadership, or deservingness","Running maximal starts without consent, medical clearance, rescue coverage, and predeclared fatigue limits","Allowing software-generated scores or coach labels to replace the directly measured mechanical traces","Presenting occupant swaps or rigging conditions as exact replicas of championship competition"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if an instrument loosens, rigging leaves its certified range, weather exceeds the safety envelope, an athlete reports pain or withdraws, timing synchronization fails, or repeated-start fatigue crosses the predeclared limit. Remove the instrumentation, restore the technician-recorded standard rigging marks, preserve ordinary training eligibility, and quarantine incomplete trials from attribution."},"baseline":"A performance review credits faster race starts to the newly installed stroke-seat rower using race splits, selected video, and coach recollection. The athlete joined when the crew also changed oarlock span, inboard length, foot-stretcher position, lineup familiarity, and start practice, so the record cannot distinguish person-specific timing and force application from positional authority, collective adaptation, or mechanical transmission.","candidate_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__sport_science__SUBSTRATE_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Selection into the stroke seat gives the focal athlete a mechanically and perceptually privileged position for setting start timing, making position and person jointly consequential while also increasing narrative focality.","The focal athlete physically applies a sequence of handle forces and stroke timings; these actor-specific actions appear as oarlock force impulses and seat-motion phases rather than personality labels.","Other rowers couple their forces to that sequence. Phase alignment can add propulsive impulses, while mistiming increases internal boat acceleration and check, so distributed execution mediates any focal-actor effect.","Oarlock span, inboard length, foot-stretcher position, blade gearing, shell mass, and water resistance constrain how crew forces become hull acceleration and may favor one stroke occupant over another.","Strain-gauged oarlocks, seat-position transducers, a hull accelerometer, and external timing gates directly measure the force-phase-to-motion pathway during matched starts.","Crossing focal versus substitute stroke occupants with current versus legacy-safe rigging separates an occupant effect, a position-and-crew effect, a mechanical-structure effect, and an occupant-by-rigging interaction within declared limits.","Counterbalanced order, fixed continuing crew, matched command scripts, recovery intervals, and bounded weather conditions reduce alternative physical explanations without treating the trials as exact race replicas.","The synthesis classifies initiation, synchronization, execution, mechanical amplification, selection, and symbolic focality separately and preserves uncertainty without converting measured contribution into authority over athlete selection."],"cell_id":"agency_structure_attribution_balance__sport_science","consequence":"Without the intervention, the program may coach imitation of an athlete-specific rhythm that only worked with one rigging package, retain or discard equipment for the wrong reason, erase the continuing crew's synchronization work, or turn a mechanically confounded start improvement into an unjust athlete-selection narrative.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity concerns attribution of short-duration rowing-shell acceleration to a focal athlete, crew coupling, and rig geometry. It uses prospective physical occupant and rigging crossovers plus direct force-motion instrumentation; it does not concern injury burden, a performance-department leader, monitoring thresholds, clinical decisions, retrospective health records, or organizational implementation of load recommendations.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Conduct an Instrumented Crew–Rigging Crossover under a predeclared safe protocol. In the same certified shell, cross two stroke-seat occupants—the focal rower and one qualified substitute—with two technician-set rigging packages—the current configuration and the documented legacy-safe configuration—while keeping the other three rowers constant. Counterbalance condition order and collect a small number of matched submaximal-to-race-pace starts after standardized recovery. Removable strain-gauged oarlocks measure each rower's force impulse; seat transducers measure stroke phase; a hull accelerometer and independent timing gates measure check, acceleration, and first-100-metre time. Blind the mechanical traces to athlete identity during initial segmentation, then classify occupant-specific initiation, collective synchronization, mechanical amplification, and position effects. Publish only a bounded attribution synthesis with substitution limits, rigging sensitivity, rival explanations, uncertainty, and a strict separation from selection or employment judgment.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without direct force and motion measurements, faster splits cannot reveal whether the focal rower changed impulse timing, the continuing crew synchronized differently, or the rigging transmitted the same effort more effectively.","mechanism_slug":"actor_structure_evidence_matrix","role":"Cross-tabulates each measured handle-force and seat-phase action with occupant, stroke-seat position, rig geometry, crew response, timing, and hull-motion effect."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without tracing the physical sequence across levels, athlete presence could be correlated with speed while the proposed force-phase, crew-coupling, and hull-acceleration mechanism remains unshown.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_across_levels","role":"Links one rower's force timing to crew phase alignment, summed oarlock impulse, within-stroke hull check, and first-100-metre acceleration."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a qualified occupant swap, the influence of the formal stroke-seat position and familiar crew routine cannot be distinguished from actions specific to the focal athlete.","mechanism_slug":"counterfactual_actor_substitution_probe","role":"Compares focal and substitute occupants under the same shell, continuing crew, command, recovery, and rigging conditions."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without physically changing the rigging package, a person effect may actually be a gearing effect, and an athlete whose technique interacts with one configuration may be labeled universally decisive.","mechanism_slug":"structural_constraint_relaxation_probe","role":"Tests whether the occupant contribution persists, disappears, or reverses when certified oarlock and foot-stretcher geometry changes."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without aligned stroke-resolved and 100-metre measurements, a single vivid first stroke or an aggregate split could conceal where acceleration differences arise.","mechanism_slug":"paired_micro_macro_timeline","role":"Aligns force impulses and seat phases for each stroke with continuous hull acceleration and the bounded start-level outcome."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without mapping selection and position, mechanical influence supplied by occupying the stroke seat may be attributed wholly to the athlete who was chosen for it.","mechanism_slug":"network_and_institutional_position_map","role":"Distinguishes the coach's lineup selection, the stroke seat's rhythm-setting opportunity, the coxswain's command role, and each rower's mechanically coupled execution."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without auditing focality, commentary, selected video, and coach-authored review material may continue to count as causal magnitude despite contradictory mechanical traces.","mechanism_slug":"narrative_focal_actor_audit","role":"Compares why the focal rower is visible with the directly measured contributions of the continuing crew and equipment configuration."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without plural review, a main effect, interaction, fatigue artifact, or water-condition artifact could be promoted prematurely into a single hero or equipment story.","mechanism_slug":"plural_causal_synthesis_review","role":"Retains competing occupant, position, coordination, rigging, interaction, fatigue, and environmental models and enforces the responsibility boundary."}],"nearest_rivals":["A rowing technique assessment that describes the focal athlete's form without testing occupant substitution or mechanical constraints","A boat-fitting optimization that selects the fastest rigging geometry without attributing athlete, position, and crew contributions","A race-split comparison that detects faster starts but cannot observe the force-transfer mechanism","A talent-identification trial that ranks rowers and improperly treats performance differences as a complete causal explanation","A video-based synchronization score whose essential effect depends on computational estimation rather than direct force-motion instrumentation","A coach appraisal that evaluates lineup decisions without measuring the athlete–crew–shell causal pathway"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention fails as an attribution improvement if calibrated sensors cannot produce repeatable force-phase and hull-motion traces, if condition order or fatigue dominates the contrasts, or if removing athlete and rigging labels leaves blinded reviewers unable to recover any reproducible occupant, crew-coupling, or mechanical pathway.","problem_falsifier":"The proposed problem is absent if existing evidence already includes consented matched occupant swaps across mechanically verified rigging configurations, direct synchronized force-motion measurements, explicit position-versus-person analysis, distributed crew contributions, bounded structural probes, rival models, and a prohibition on converting causal findings into selection judgments.","risks":["Repeated starts may cause fatigue, pain, or overuse symptoms.","Instrument mounts or altered rigging could create mechanical or capsize hazards.","Water current, wind, steering, and wake may obscure small condition differences.","The substitute may differ in familiarity, anthropometry, or trust as well as individual technique.","Carryover learning between conditions may violate independence.","A legacy rigging package may interact differently with each rower's body dimensions.","Small repeated-trial samples may encourage false precision or universal claims.","Coaches may repurpose findings for selection despite the responsibility boundary.","Instrumentation may alter normal technique or crew attention."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Mechanically valid crossover trials may show nearly identical force-phase and acceleration patterns for both occupants, while the current rigging package improves starts regardless of occupant; alternatively, the focal athlete's apparent effect may disappear after accounting for the continuing crew's phase adaptation, leaving no reproducible person-specific pathway beyond occupying the stroke seat."},"next_evidence_step":"Bench-calibrate all removable instruments, verify both rigging packages against certified limits, and then—only with consent, medical clearance, and safe water—run one low-burden feasibility block containing each of the four occupant-by-rigging conditions once in counterbalanced order. Assess mount safety, signal synchronization, trace completeness, within-condition repeatability from the first strokes, fatigue drift, and whether occupant-specific and rigging-specific links are physically discriminable. Stop before estimating a general effect or changing technique, equipment, or lineup.","observable_state":"An elite coxed four records faster first-100-metre splits after a prominent rower moves into the stroke seat. The move coincides with a new rigging package and accumulated crew practice. Review footage centers the focal rower, but the program has no synchronized measurements of individual oarlock force, seat phase, within-stroke hull motion, or performance under alternate qualified occupants and rigging configurations.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A rowing program cannot determine whether improved race-start acceleration arose from the focal stroke-seat rower's distinctive force timing, from the mechanical opportunity attached to the stroke position, from the continuing crew's learned synchronization, or from concurrent changes in rigging geometry. Hero-centered and equipment-determinist accounts therefore support incompatible coaching and equipment lessons while obscuring distributed physical contribution.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Unlike technique review, boat fitting, split comparison, talent ranking, computational video scoring, or coach appraisal, this intervention tests whether a directly measured occupant-specific force-to-acceleration pathway survives both qualified stroke-seat substitution and a physical rigging crossover while the continuing crew remains explicit in the mechanism.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Changed the bounded outcome from season-level injury burden to first-100-metre rowing-shell acceleration.","Changed the focal contribution claim from a performance leader's recommendations to a stroke-seat athlete's physically measured force timing.","Limited all conclusions to the tested crew, shell, occupants, rigging ranges, start protocol, and environmental envelope."],"conceptual_changes":["Replaced retrospective organizational attribution with prospective athlete–position–crew–equipment attribution.","Made mechanical transmission and hydrodynamic motion central structural conditions rather than schedule, clinical authority, and monitoring infrastructure.","Added an athlete-by-rigging interaction so structure may amplify, suppress, or reverse an individual contribution."],"evidence_changes":["Replaced health records, dashboards, and staff recollections with calibrated oarlock-force, seat-phase, hull-acceleration, and timing-gate measurements.","Added blinded segmentation of mechanical traces and direct occupant-by-rigging contrasts."],"operational_changes":["Introduced removable instrumentation, technician-set mechanical crossovers, counterbalanced repeated starts, medical stop rules, and restoration of standard rigging.","Made bench calibration the authorized first step and prohibited lineup or contract use."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Produce a second opportunity materially independent of the sealed injury-attribution proposal","Use measurement instrumentation and mechanical perturbation as the essential causal substrate","Preserve focal-actor, distributed-actor, position, structure, timing, substitution, and uncertainty distinctions","Separate causal attribution from athlete selection, praise, blame, and employment authority","Specify a bounded, reversible first evidence step with physical safety controls"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Explanatory target, scope, and use","domain_realization":"Acceleration and elapsed time over the first 100 metres for one crew and shell under specified starts, used only for technique and equipment learning."},{"archetype_element":"Focal actor and collective inventory","domain_realization":"The prominent stroke-seat rower is focal; the continuing rowers, substitute, coxswain, coach, technician, biomechanist, and medical staff remain visible."},{"archetype_element":"Structural condition and path map","domain_realization":"Seat position, lineup selection, oarlock span, inboard length, foot-stretcher geometry, shell mechanics, water conditions, and crew familiarity define opportunity and constraint."},{"archetype_element":"Agency contribution trace","domain_realization":"Measured handle forces and seat phases connect each rower's physical actions to crew coupling and hull motion."},{"archetype_element":"Opportunity, constraint, and selection map","domain_realization":"Coach selection places one athlete in the rhythm-setting stroke position, while equipment geometry determines how that athlete's actions can be transmitted."},{"archetype_element":"Causal role and timing classification","domain_realization":"Stroke initiation, synchronization, execution, mechanical amplification, command, selection, and symbolic focality are separated stroke by stroke."},{"archetype_element":"Evidence provenance and narrative weighting","domain_realization":"Calibrated instrument traces and timing gates are distinguished from selected footage, commentary, and coach-authored summaries."},{"archetype_element":"Counterfactual actor substitution","domain_realization":"A qualified substitute occupies the same stroke seat with the same continuing crew, shell, command, and rigging."},{"archetype_element":"Structural counterfactual and constraint test","domain_realization":"The technician alternates between current and legacy-safe rigging packages to expose persistent, conditional, or equipment-generated athlete effects."},{"archetype_element":"Cross-scale actor–structure interaction","domain_realization":"Individual force impulses are aligned with crew phase relations, within-stroke hull motion, and the 100-metre outcome."},{"archetype_element":"Attribution uncertainty and responsibility boundary","domain_realization":"The synthesis retains environmental, fatigue, learning, anthropometric, and interaction explanations and cannot determine selection, contracts, praise, or blame."}],"substrate_contract":{"counterfactual_independence":"If scheduling software, databases, automated scoring, models, and digital control are removed, technicians can still set the two physical rigging configurations, swap occupants, and read synchronized force, displacement, acceleration, and gate-time signals from the instruments. Those physical measurements and perturbations—not a computational wrapper—supply the essential attribution evidence.","forbidden_channel_audit":"Software may timestamp, display, and archive raw signals but may not choose conditions, prescribe technique, infer causal roles, rank athletes, or control the boat. Paper condition cards, manual counterbalancing, analog calibration checks, and blinded human inspection can support the same essential intervention; governance, coaching instructions, and consent procedures provide safety and interpretation boundaries only.","primary_allowed_process":"MEASUREMENT_INSTRUMENTATION"},"title":"Instrumented Crew–Rigging Crossover for Stroke-Seat Attribution","version":0},"schema_version":1}