{"actors":["Returning athlete","Sports physiotherapist or athletic trainer","Team physician","Strength-and-conditioning coach","Sport scientist or biomechanist","Sport coach"],"affected_objective":"Restore sport-specific performance exposure while preserving tissue safety, athlete agency, rehabilitation records, and a credible path back to the last tolerated state.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"With athlete consent and the relevant data custodian's approval, the sport scientist may perform a retrospective, de-identified audit of completed return-to-sport episodes; this step cannot alter clearance, training, selection, or treatment.","decision_authority":"The licensed sports-medicine clinician retains medical-clearance and restriction authority; the athlete may stop any exposure; the strength-and-conditioning coach controls training only within those restrictions; the sport scientist supplies evidence but cannot clear an athlete.","excluded_actions":["Automated or metric-only medical clearance","Overriding athlete-reported symptoms or clinician restrictions","Withholding symptoms to preserve selection eligibility","Introducing unvalidated maximal cutting, contact, or sprint exposure during the first evidence step","Using team-selection pressure as consent","Treating workload data as a medical diagnosis"],"halt_rollback":"During later piloting, halt on clinician-defined pain, swelling, instability, neurological symptoms, material movement deterioration, or an adverse next-day response; return to the last clinician-approved exposure state, preserve all records, and require reassessment before progression."},"baseline":"Binary medical clearance followed by a broadly linear increase in total practice volume, with session completion and aggregate workload used as primary progression signals even when new movement modes are introduced.","candidate_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__sport_science__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["A recovering athlete accumulates capacity through rehabilitation activities that preserve some fitness and movement functions but do not reproduce every sport-specific demand.","Aggregate duration or workload can rise smoothly while the first high-speed sprint, unanticipated cut, contact episode, or fatigued technical sequence creates an abrupt change in tissue loading, perception, and coordination.","If that modality boundary is treated as another point on a linear volume ramp, aggregate continuity can conceal a local functional rupture and its subgroup-specific effects.","The passport separates load volume from movement-mode transitions, reconstructs multiple timelines, and tests drift, accumulation, threshold, shock, and measurement-change explanations against symptoms, mechanics, capacity, and athlete accounts.","The diagnosed regime determines whether each demand should be introduced gradually, behind staged gates, in a bounded parallel block, or deferred rather than applying one tempo to the entire return.","Explicit stop conditions, preserved rehabilitation capacity, and state records keep early exposures recoverable and prevent fallback from meaning an unstructured reset.","Repeated monitoring tests whether the chosen regime remains appropriate as fatigue, confidence, competition context, and sport-specific complexity change."],"cell_id":"continuity_rupture_regime_diagnosis_and_transition_design__sport_science","consequence":"A false-continuity judgment can expose an athlete to a sport-specific demand discontinuity without corresponding capacity or recovery safeguards; a false-rupture judgment can trigger unnecessary shutdown, loss of useful adaptation, delayed reintegration, and reduced athlete confidence.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not evaluated against other proposals because runtime isolation prohibits inspecting them; this candidate is specifically grounded in modality-boundary transitions during injury reintegration in sport science.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a clinician-governed Return-to-Sport Regime Passport for each injury reintegration. It defines the changing object as the athlete's capacity to tolerate and execute specific sport demands, preserves medical restrictions, athlete stop rights, rehabilitation knowledge, and longitudinal records as invariants, and reconstructs pre-injury, rehabilitation, and reintegration timelines at repetition, session, week, and phase scales. Candidate boundaries include first high-speed running, first planned and unplanned cut, first contact, first fatigued skill block, and first unrestricted practice. A paired continuity–rupture ledger combines external load, movement-quality observations, clinical state, next-day response, confidence, missingness, and athlete accounts. The team classifies each boundary as drift, accumulation, threshold crossing, shock, reorganization, or measurement artifact; tests return-path asymmetry; and selects a demand-specific gradual, staged, parallel, or deferred transition. Later implementation begins with reversible submaximal exposures, fixed stop gates, preserved rehabilitation capacity, and documented sunset criteria for restrictions.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without resolution comparison, a smooth weekly workload could mask a repetition- or session-level jump when cutting, sprinting, or contact begins.","mechanism_slug":"multi_resolution_change_point_and_trend_comparison","role":"Compare repetition, session, weekly, rehabilitation-phase, limb-specific, and movement-mode trajectories around candidate boundaries."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without process tracing, a response change could be attributed to workload shape when it instead follows fatigue, fear, altered technique, surface, equipment, or measurement changes.","mechanism_slug":"process_tracing_and_mechanism_discrimination","role":"Link exposure changes to clinical state, movement strategy, context, athlete experience, and next-day response while retaining rival explanations."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without paired claims, staff could select only evidence supporting either uninterrupted progression or complete shutdown.","mechanism_slug":"continuity_rupture_claim_matrix","role":"Place evidence of preserved capacity beside evidence of demand-specific break, with provenance, uncertainty, missingness, and affected perspective."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without bounded probes, threshold behavior and asymmetric recovery would remain assumptions until unrestricted practice created a larger and less recoverable test.","mechanism_slug":"threshold_hysteresis_and_reversibility_probe","role":"Use clinician-approved submaximal exposures and next-day observation to test whether response is proportional, threshold-like, or slower to reverse than to enter."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without rehearsal, the handoff from controlled rehabilitation to team practice could reveal incompatible rules, monitoring gaps, or unusable fallback only after exposure.","mechanism_slug":"parallel_transition_and_cutover_rehearsal","role":"Rehearse a bounded sport-specific block while rehabilitation support remains active, with one conflict authority and state reconciliation afterward."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without audit, restrictions might persist without justification or apparent clearance might conceal continuing compensations and lost rehabilitation knowledge.","mechanism_slug":"post_transition_legacy_loss_and_regime_audit","role":"Check whether preserved functions, records, athlete voice, restrictions, compensations, and recovery promises match the realized post-transition state."}],"nearest_rivals":["A fixed percentage-based weekly workload ramp","A single readiness-score or limb-symmetry clearance threshold","Acute-to-chronic workload-ratio monitoring","Time-since-injury return protocols","Unstructured coach-and-clinician consensus","Full rest followed by unrestricted practice clearance"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is undermined if preregistered retrospective coding shows that its candidate modality boundaries and multi-scale ledger do not distinguish any decision-relevant discordance beyond the same data viewed through the baseline linear ramp, or if independent reviewers cannot reproduce its regime classifications.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified for the studied setting if sport-specific modality additions produce proportional, scale-stable responses; aggregate and movement-specific signals agree; return paths match entry paths; and no candidate boundary changes the appropriate progression decision.","risks":["False change points from sparse sampling, altered instruments, or multiple comparisons","Athletes suppressing symptoms because progression affects selection","Over-monitoring increasing anxiety or changing movement behavior","Submaximal probes failing to reveal demands that appear only at competition intensity","Parallel rehabilitation and team-training rules creating ambiguous authority","Conservative gates prolonging restriction without decision-relevant learning","Sensitive health and performance data being used beyond the consented purpose"],"strongest_counterevidence":"A consistent series of completed returns in which linear volume progression correctly anticipates clinical, biomechanical, psychological, and next-day responses across every added movement mode, with no scale-dependent discontinuity or asymmetric recovery, would argue that the added regime-diagnosis layer is unnecessary."},"next_evidence_step":"Conduct one bounded retrospective study of no more than 12 completed lower-limb injury returns from a single program. Using only already-authorized records, pre-register candidate boundaries and coding rules; reconstruct four weeks before each boundary and two weeks after it where data exist; annotate instrument changes and missingness; and have two blinded reviewers compare the passport classification with the baseline linear-ramp interpretation. Stop after the audit and report only feasibility, reviewer agreement, scale-dependent discordances, and cases that would have changed a progression discussion; do not alter athlete care or estimate an effect size.","observable_state":"For each returning athlete: clinician restrictions; exposure duration and intensity; counts of accelerations, high-speed runs, planned and unplanned cuts, contacts, and fatigued skill repetitions; movement-quality or joint-loading proxies collected with unchanged instruments; limb-specific strength or task measures; pain, swelling, instability, range-of-motion or clinician-defined status; session and next-day response; confidence and perceived readiness; surface and equipment context; missing observations; and the athlete's account of which demand felt continuous or discontinuous.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"During return from lower-limb injury, staff may treat rehabilitation-to-practice progression as either a smooth workload ramp or a single clearance event. Total workload can look continuous even when adding high-speed running, reactive cutting, contact, or fatigue creates a demand-specific state transition. Without separating properties, scales, and return paths, the team cannot tell whether an adverse response reflects ordinary adaptation, accumulated load, a threshold, an exogenous perturbation, or changed measurement, so it may choose an ill-matched gradual or abrupt transition.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Relative to fixed ramps and one-score clearance, this candidate makes the transition tempo conditional on diagnosed movement-mode dynamics: it can preserve a smooth volume progression while treating the introduction of a particular demand as a separately gated, reversible transition. Whether that distinction improves decisions remains an empirical question.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Generated one closed-book reverse-innovation candidate","Specified a concrete sport-science problem and observable state","Preserved the archetype's diagnosis-to-transition causal structure","Defined authority, safeguards, falsifiers, risks, and a bounded read-only first step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Change Object, Property, and Invariant Frame","domain_realization":"The object is the recovering athlete's capacity to tolerate and execute named sport demands; properties are tissue response, movement strategy, physiological load, confidence, and recovery; invariants are clinician restrictions, athlete stop rights, record continuity, and retained rehabilitation capability."},{"archetype_element":"Multi-Scale Timeline and Boundary Set","domain_realization":"Align pre-injury reference, rehabilitation, and reintegration data at repetition, session, week, and phase scales around first sprint, cut, contact, fatigued-skill, and unrestricted-practice boundaries."},{"archetype_element":"Change-Mechanism and Regime Classifier","domain_realization":"Evaluate ordinary drift, cumulative fatigue, threshold response, contextual shock, coordination reorganization, and instrument change as rival or combined explanations."},{"archetype_element":"Continuity–Rupture Evidence Ledger","domain_realization":"Pair preserved fitness, completed volume, and stable clinical measures with demand-specific mechanics, symptoms, next-day response, confidence, missingness, and athlete accounts."},{"archetype_element":"Threshold, Path-Dependence, and Reversibility Profile","domain_realization":"Record response ranges, fatigue amplification, entry and recovery conditions, next-day persistence, lost capacity during restriction, and whether returning to the prior load restores the prior state."},{"archetype_element":"Affected-Party, Legacy, and Loss Map","domain_realization":"Map athlete agency and selection consequences, clinician duties, coach capacity needs, rehabilitation knowledge, longitudinal records, team dependencies, and restrictions to preserve, transform, archive, compensate, or retire."},{"archetype_element":"Transition-Regime, Safeguard, and Cutover Plan","domain_realization":"Assign each sport demand a gradual, staged, bounded-parallel, or deferred entry; define readiness evidence, one conflict authority, stop gates, fallback, record preservation, and restriction sunset criteria."},{"archetype_element":"Regime Monitor, Recovery, and Revision Loop","domain_realization":"Track leading and distributional indicators across athletes and movement modes, unexpected continuity or rupture, restriction duration, next-day recovery, legacy loss, and triggers to pause, regress, progress, or redesign."}],"title":"Return-to-Sport Regime Passport for Detecting Hidden Demand Discontinuities","version":0}