{"actors":["Sport scientist responsible for athlete-testing protocols","Biomechanics laboratory technician","Researchers and coaches who use force-platform outputs","Equipment vendor or qualified maintenance technician","Athletes who participate in testing"],"affected_objective":"Preserve the measurement integrity of force-platform assessments so changes attributed to jumping, landing, balance, or force-production performance are not artifacts of gradually degrading sensors, mounting, synchronization, or data-acquisition components.","arm":"ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"Run reference-load and synchronization checks in shadow mode alongside already scheduled laboratory quality-control work, label the results as provisional, and make no retrospective data exclusions or athlete decisions from the monitoring rules.","decision_authority":"The sport scientist owns test-protocol validity and decides whether affected measurements may be interpreted; the laboratory technician may pause acquisition and perform approved verification or recalibration; only a qualified maintainer may conduct hardware repair. Coaches and clinicians retain authority over training and health decisions and must be told when measurement integrity is uncertain.","excluded_actions":["Inferring athlete deterioration from measurements produced while the platform is in a warning or unacceptable state","Changing training, selection, return-to-sport, or medical decisions solely because an equipment-integrity alert occurred","Silently deleting, altering, or replacing previously collected athlete records","Opening, repairing, or modifying hardware without appropriate qualification and authorization","Continuing athlete testing on a loose, unstable, electrically unsafe, or otherwise hazardous installation","Treating a successful reference check as evidence that every athlete trial or analysis pipeline is valid"],"halt_rollback":"Stop use of an affected platform immediately if its surface, mounting, wiring, or electrical condition could endanger a participant. Suspend the pilot if reference procedures expose athletes to added strenuous trials, if alerts are concealed from data users, or if provisional rules repeatedly quarantine valid data without review. Return to the laboratory's established equipment-safety and quality-control procedures while retaining an auditable record of disputed alerts."},"baseline":"The comparator is ordinary laboratory practice in which manufacturer calibration, visible equipment condition, occasional zeroing, and analyst review may identify conspicuous faults, but reference-check results are not necessarily retained as a longitudinal condition history with warning bands, persistence rules, named ownership, and predefined data-protection and maintenance responses.","candidate_id":"deterioration_monitoring__sport_science__ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["Repeated loading, temperature cycling, cable movement, fastener relaxation, surface wear, sensor drift, or clock misalignment gradually changes the force-platform measurement chain.","The system can continue producing plausible force curves even while zero stability, known-load accuracy, channel agreement, timing alignment, or signal noise slowly worsens.","Because individual deviations remain within superficially believable ranges, analysts may interpret measurement drift as athlete adaptation, fatigue, asymmetry, or technique change.","Recurring unloaded, reference-load, and synchronization checks create comparable leading and lagging observations of measurement-system condition without requiring additional maximal athlete trials.","A retained condition record distinguishes isolated setup noise from persistent direction, accelerating drift, or deterioration shared across multiple integrity indicators.","Warning and unacceptable bands convert sustained degradation into verification, data qualification, recalibration, platform isolation, or maintenance triggers.","Named decision owners prevent uncertain measurements from reaching athlete-facing interpretation until the measurement chain is verified or restored.","Post-response reference checks determine whether integrity returned toward its baseline and inform later adjustment of indicators, bands, and inspection cadence."],"cell_id":"deterioration_monitoring__sport_science","consequence":"Undetected measurement-system deterioration can create false longitudinal changes, obscure real performance changes, contaminate research records, and prompt inappropriate coaching or clinical attention before the equipment produces an obvious fault.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity preserves laboratory measurement integrity rather than an athlete's throwing mechanics or recovery capacity. It monitors reference artifacts, hardware, synchronization, and acquisition behavior; its response path qualifies data, recalibrates or isolates equipment, and initiates maintenance rather than modifying an athlete's technique, recovery, or throwing exposure.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a Force-Platform Measurement Integrity Loop. After installation or confirmed servicing, establish a platform-specific reference record using repeated unloaded zero checks, traceable static loads at defined positions, a standardized non-athlete dynamic artifact where feasible, and synchronization tests with connected motion-capture or acquisition systems. Record zero offset and recovery, reference-load error, center-of-pressure or channel consistency, noise characteristics, sample loss, clock offset, mounting observations, temperature, software version, and cabling configuration. Run a short zero and reference check before each testing block, a fuller standardized verification weekly while the platform is active, and an inspection after relocation, impact, software change, or mounting disturbance. The laboratory technician reviews disaggregated trajectories. A provisional warning requires a persistent adverse shift across repeated comparable checks or corroboration by two independent indicators; an unacceptable state includes failure of a safety inspection, a confirmed reference error outside the laboratory's approved tolerance, accelerating drift after verification, or unresolved synchronization loss. A warning pauses interpretation and prompts setup inspection and repeat verification. An unacceptable state removes the platform from athlete-facing use, flags the affected data interval for sport-scientist review, and routes recalibration or repair to qualified personnel. Successful reference checks are required before return to service, and alert outcomes are reviewed periodically to recalibrate the monitoring rules.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a documented healthy reference state, gradual change cannot be separated consistently from normal platform-specific variation.","mechanism_slug":"baseline_condition_model","role":"Defines healthy, acceptable, warning, and unacceptable measurement-chain condition for each installed platform."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without condition-sensitive measures, the laboratory may observe plausible athlete outputs while hidden measurement integrity deteriorates.","mechanism_slug":"deterioration_indicator","role":"Uses zero stability, reference accuracy, channel consistency, noise, sample continuity, synchronization, and physical-condition observations as disaggregated indicators."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without recurring comparable checks, deterioration can remain invisible between commissioning, service visits, or obvious failure.","mechanism_slug":"preventive_inspection","role":"Places brief checks before testing blocks and fuller verification at a cadence matched to platform use and the cost of contaminated data."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without retained trajectories, staff may dismiss repeated drift as unrelated setup variation or overreact to a single noisy check.","mechanism_slug":"trend_monitoring","role":"Evaluates direction, rate, persistence, corroboration, and acceleration across comparable reference observations."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without staged thresholds, integrity findings cannot consistently determine when data need qualification, verification, or equipment isolation.","mechanism_slug":"repair_threshold","role":"Separates provisional warnings from safety or validity conditions requiring removal from service."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without explicit transfer of responsibility, technicians, analysts, and coaches may each assume another party resolved the integrity concern.","mechanism_slug":"accountable_condition_owner","role":"Assigns routine verification to the laboratory technician, interpretability decisions to the sport scientist, and hardware work to qualified maintenance personnel."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a response path, checks become quality-control records that do not protect subsequent athlete assessments or existing data.","mechanism_slug":"response_pathway","role":"Links deterioration evidence to repeat verification, setup correction, data-interval annotation, recalibration, isolation, repair, and verified return to service."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without reviewing alerts against servicing findings and successful repeat checks, environmental or procedural artifacts may become permanent false alarms.","mechanism_slug":"false_alarm_review","role":"Uses resolved alerts, missed faults, context changes, and maintenance findings to revise indicators, tolerances, and cadence."}],"nearest_rivals":["Manufacturer calibration performed at installation or on a fixed annual schedule verifies the instrument at selected moments; this candidate maintains condition history and triggers responses according to observed deterioration between those moments.","Pre-session zeroing adjusts a current offset but does not by itself trend reference accuracy, noise, synchronization, mounting condition, or recurrence over time.","Analyst quality checks inspect athlete trials for implausible curves; this candidate tests the measurement chain independently with comparable reference observations before athlete outputs are interpreted.","Equipment redundancy permits another platform to continue operating after a fault; this candidate seeks precursor trends and defines when an apparently functioning platform should be verified or removed from service.","A laboratory equipment inventory records location, service dates, and ownership; this candidate records changing condition, interprets trends, and links threshold crossings to data and maintenance decisions."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is undermined if repeated reference checks are themselves unreliable, if persistent alerts do not correspond to independent calibration or maintenance findings, if the loop fails to identify intentionally introduced detectable drift, or if it provides no decision-relevant warning beyond the laboratory's existing quality-control process.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is unsupported if the platform measurement chain remains stable until abrupt, unmistakable failure; if no feasible reference observation precedes invalid athlete data; or if existing controls already preserve an equivalent longitudinal condition history and response pathway.","risks":["Reference artifacts or applied loads may be insufficiently stable and create false trends.","Temperature, warm-up time, flooring, mounting, cabling, or software configuration may confound comparisons.","Frequent alerts may interrupt testing and encourage staff to bypass the procedure.","A passing check may create false confidence about athlete trial execution or downstream analysis.","Averages may hide deterioration in one channel, location, sampling interval, or connected device.","Retrospective data flags may be applied inconsistently or interpreted as proof that all affected records are invalid.","Maintenance capacity may be insufficient when multiple platforms cross thresholds.","Staff may alter provisional tolerances to keep equipment available.","Reference procedures involving heavy loads or unstable fixtures may create manual-handling or impact hazards.","Integrity records linked to identifiable athlete sessions may expose performance or health-adjacent information unnecessarily."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Modern force platforms may remain within approved tolerances for long intervals, while observed anomalies more often arise from test execution, signal processing, or synchronization configuration than gradual hardware deterioration. Existing manufacturer and laboratory checks may therefore capture the actionable faults without an additional trend-monitoring loop."},"next_evidence_step":"Conduct an eight-week shadow-mode feasibility study on one active force-platform setup without adding athlete trials. Pre-register reference procedures, comparability fields, provisional bands, missing-data rules, persistence logic, and an intentionally introduced safe configuration perturbation that qualified staff can reverse. Measure reference-check repeatability, completion burden, alert frequency, sensitivity to the perturbation, agreement with an independent calibration or technician assessment, and whether alerts identify a bounded data interval and feasible response. Do not exclude athlete data or change athlete decisions during the pilot; conclude with a documented false-alarm, missed-fault, and safety review.","observable_state":"Each platform has a dated condition record containing unloaded zero behavior, reference-load error by tested position, channel or center-of-pressure consistency, noise characteristics, missing samples, synchronization residuals, physical mounting observations, temperature, warm-up duration, software version, cabling configuration, and recent relocation or impact events. Healthy means comparable checks remain within the confirmed reference variation and approved laboratory tolerances without an adverse slope. Acceptable means an isolated deviation resolves on repeat verification and lacks corroboration. Warning means a deviation persists across comparable checks or two independent integrity indicators deteriorate together. Unacceptable means a safety defect, confirmed tolerance failure, unresolved synchronization loss, or persistent accelerating deterioration remains after verification.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A force-platform measurement chain used for jumping, landing, balance, or force-production assessments can lose integrity gradually while continuing to emit plausible data. Small changes in sensor response, zero stability, mounting, cabling, sampling continuity, or device synchronization may be absorbed into ordinary analytical variation. Without comparable recurring reference checks and trend memory, the laboratory may attribute equipment-originated changes to athletes until a conspicuous fault, contradictory result, or external calibration reveals the decline.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal is a deterioration-monitoring intervention because it observes persistent changes in the condition of a sport-science measurement system and converts trend evidence into staged data-protection and maintenance action. It differs from fixed calibration schedules, one-time zeroing, trial-level data cleaning, and redundancy by requiring a reference baseline, recurring inspections, trend memory, explicit thresholds, accountable interpretation, and verified restoration before return to service.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial version; no parent claims were revised."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial translation of deterioration monitoring into longitudinal force-platform measurement-integrity management."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence was searched or added; tolerances and cadence are provisional and must be validated against laboratory and manufacturer requirements."],"operational_changes":["Specified non-athlete reference checks, context controls, staged data and equipment responses, decision ownership, shadow-mode evaluation, and halt conditions."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Independent domain problem","Observable condition bands","Recurring inspection and trend interpretation","Threshold-linked response pathway","Authority boundaries and participant safety","Problem and intervention falsifiers","Bounded first evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Define condition to preserve","domain_realization":"Preserve the validity and safety-relevant integrity of the force-platform measurement chain used in sport-science assessments."},{"archetype_element":"Establish baseline and bands","domain_realization":"Use repeated checks after confirmed installation or servicing to define platform-specific healthy variation, approved tolerance, warning, and unacceptable states."},{"archetype_element":"Select deterioration indicators","domain_realization":"Track zero stability, reference accuracy, channel agreement, signal noise, sample continuity, synchronization, and physical installation condition."},{"archetype_element":"Set inspection cadence","domain_realization":"Perform brief checks before testing blocks, fuller weekly verification during active use, and event-triggered checks after relocation, impact, servicing, or configuration change."},{"archetype_element":"Track trends rather than points","domain_realization":"Retain comparable reference observations and interpret direction, persistence, corroboration, and acceleration with environmental and configuration context."},{"archetype_element":"Define thresholds and escalation","domain_realization":"Use persistent or corroborated shifts for warnings and require removal from service for safety defects, confirmed tolerance failures, or unresolved integrity loss."},{"archetype_element":"Connect to response pathways","domain_realization":"Route warnings to repeat verification and setup inspection, and route unacceptable states to data qualification, equipment isolation, recalibration, repair, and verified return to service."},{"archetype_element":"Recalibrate monitoring","domain_realization":"Compare alerts with independent checks, maintenance findings, missed faults, configuration changes, and procedural burden before revising indicators, bands, or cadence."}],"title":"Force-Platform Measurement Integrity Loop","version":0}