{"actors":["Pressure-vessel design engineers who define geometry, materials, and load cases","Stress and fatigue analysts who issue configuration-specific calculations","Test engineers and external laboratories that produce coupon, burst, and cycle-test evidence","Manufacturing engineers and suppliers who report process changes and nonconformances","Configuration-management staff who release CAD, bills of material, and specifications","Quality and safety reviewers who adjudicate deviations and qualification evidence","The designated design authority that accepts or rejects the qualification basis"],"affected_objective":"Maintain a reproducible, configuration-specific qualification basis for each composite pressure-vessel design release and engineering decision.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"A configuration manager may create a read-only shadow ledger from archived records for one retired vessel subassembly and one completed design review; the ledger may not drive an operational decision.","decision_authority":"The designated design authority, with quality and safety concurrence, decides whether any event schema, projector, or resulting view may enter the controlled engineering process.","excluded_actions":["Do not alter released CAD, bills of material, specifications, test records, approvals, or manufacturing instructions.","Do not treat inferred, reported, disputed, or unverified assertions as adjudicated engineering facts.","Do not automate design approval, waiver acceptance, safety-significant disposition, or supplier authorization.","Do not ingest raw personnel telemetry or unrelated communications merely because they could supply additional events.","Do not expose supplier-confidential, export-controlled, or personnel-sensitive evidence beyond existing access permissions."],"halt_rollback":"Stop the shadow exercise if identity ambiguity, missing provenance, access violations, or replay disagreement could misrepresent a safety-significant decision. Delete the disposable projections, retain an access-controlled discrepancy report, and leave every controlled source record unchanged."},"baseline":"Current CAD, bill-of-material, requirement, analysis, test, nonconformance, and approval records remain authoritative in their separate controlled repositories; reviewers assemble a qualification package by following document revisions, links, and manual reconciliation.","candidate_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__engineering_design__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["A vessel configuration changes through requirement decisions, geometry or material revisions, analysis runs, specimen builds, tests, nonconformance dispositions, waivers, and approvals.","Those happenings are currently represented as mutable document states and cross-tool links, so event time, record time, participant roles, configuration applicability, and correction lineage can be separated or overwritten.","A later reviewer can see the latest artifacts but may be unable to reproduce exactly which configuration and evidence were available at an earlier design gate.","The intervention records each bounded qualification assertion with stable identity, explicit roles, dual time, affected configuration, transformation delta, provenance, uncertainty, and status in a governed append-only ledger.","Versioned projectors replay the accepted events under declared partial-order and applicability rules to generate current-configuration, decision-time qualification, and unresolved-evidence views.","Frontiers and coverage statements expose late laboratory results, unprocessed corrections, source gaps, and disputed applicability rather than presenting the projection as complete.","Linked correction, supersession, or adjudication events trigger scoped rebuilding while preserving the evidence state used at the original review.","Rebuild-and-diff checks reveal whether a live qualification view has drifted from the canonical event history, allowing the design authority to investigate without patching the projection as independent truth."],"cell_id":"event_log_centered_modeling__engineering_design","consequence":"A design gate can rely on evidence associated with a different material lot, geometry revision, load case, or knowledge date, leaving the approval rationale difficult to reproduce and forcing manual investigation when late results or corrections arrive.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Comparison with prior proposals was not performed under runtime isolation; this candidate is specifically centered on reconstructing the configuration-specific qualification basis of a composite pressure vessel rather than on general project logging or document storage.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Create a governed qualification-event ledger for one composite pressure-vessel program. Define event types for requirement acceptance, design release, analysis execution, specimen manufacture, test execution, evidence report, nonconformance, disposition, waiver, correction, and approval. Each assertion carries a stable event ID; vessel, specimen, material-lot, model, and document references; participant roles; occurrence and record times; configuration applicability; transformation delta; provenance; uncertainty; and validity status. The validation gate quarantines malformed or duplicate assertions and accepts retries idempotently. Corrections append linked retraction, supersession, compensation, or adjudication records. Separate physical, causal, source-local, and computational orderings preserve concurrency. Pinned projectors derive the as-designed state, as-built/tested lineage, decision-time qualification basis, and unresolved-evidence queue while displaying projector version, frontier, lag, source coverage, and conflicts. Late evidence rebuilds the current view but leaves the original decision-time view frozen and flags materially affected decisions for human review. Controlled replay and rebuild-and-diff checks test projections against ledger invariants; retention and access policies propagate to projections, indexes, and snapshots.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without append-only storage, corrected test applicability or waiver status could overwrite the record used at the original gate, eliminating decision-time reproducibility.","mechanism_slug":"append_only_event_store","role":"Preserves accepted qualification assertions and their linked corrections as the scoped historical authority."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without dual temporal axes, a late laboratory report could be mistaken for evidence available when the design was approved.","mechanism_slug":"bitemporal_event_register","role":"Separates when an engineering event occurred or applied from when it was recorded, corrected, or adjudicated."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without versioned projections, qualification state would remain an independently assembled package rather than a reproducible function of governed events.","mechanism_slug":"event_sourced_projection","role":"Builds configuration, evidence-lineage, and decision-time views from declared event inputs and applicability rules."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without stable identities and idempotent acceptance, repeated imports or replay could duplicate tests, dispositions, or approval effects.","mechanism_slug":"event_replay_deduplication","role":"Prevents retry, overlapping imports, and rebuilds from multiplying engineering effects."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without pinned replay, the team could not distinguish missing event content from projector drift or changed interpretation.","mechanism_slug":"deterministic_replay_protocol","role":"Reconstructs views using declared schemas, ordering semantics, projector versions, and invariants."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without rebuild-and-diff reconciliation, manually patched qualification views could silently become a competing authority.","mechanism_slug":"projection_rebuild_and_diff","role":"Compares live views with recomputation from the canonical qualification history and routes discrepancies for governed repair."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without visible frontiers, reviewers could read a view as current despite unprocessed test reports, corrections, or failed source imports.","mechanism_slug":"projection_frontier_dashboard","role":"Displays processing frontier, lag, source coverage, unresolved conflicts, and degraded status at review time."}],"nearest_rivals":["Document-controlled product-lifecycle management: preserves released revisions and approvals but does not necessarily make cross-tool engineering happenings canonical or rebuild every qualification view from them.","Requirements traceability matrix: links requirements to analyses and tests but usually represents relationships at the current document state rather than dual-time transformation and correction events.","Version-controlled design repository: retains file history but does not by itself encode participant roles, configuration applicability, evidence status, partial ordering, or projector frontiers.","Digital-thread integration layer: connects engineering artifacts across tools, but differs unless its governed events are authoritative and its views are disposable, replayable projections.","Conventional audit log: records tool activity but may lack bounded engineering-event semantics, transformation deltas, correction lineage, and sufficient evidence to reconstruct qualification state."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified for the pilot scope if the pinned projector cannot reconstruct the signed configuration and evidence set for the selected historical gate from accepted events, or if the event-derived view offers no clearer detection of deliberately seeded late, duplicate, superseded, and disputed records than the baseline package review.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified for the selected scope if the existing controlled repositories already reproduce, without discretionary reconstruction, the exact configuration, evidence applicability, correction lineage, and knowledge frontier used at the historical gate.","risks":["Event granularity may create burdensome capture without adding decision-relevant reconstruction.","A canonical-looking ledger may falsely elevate incomplete or disputed assertions into facts.","Incorrect specimen, material-lot, or configuration identity resolution may attach evidence to the wrong design.","A computational total order may be misread as physical or causal sequence.","Retention of detailed engineering activity may expand surveillance, confidentiality, export-control, or litigation exposure.","Projector defects or schema upcasting may produce plausible but incorrect qualification views.","Teams may patch projections directly when replay is inconvenient, recreating multiple sources of truth.","Unlogged supplier work or informal engineering judgment may be mistaken for non-occurrence."],"strongest_counterevidence":"Controlled PLM baselines, signed test reports, configuration indexes, and approval packages may already preserve the necessary history; observed discrepancies could instead result from failure to follow existing configuration-management procedures rather than from a current-state-centered representation."},"next_evidence_step":"Run a two-week, read-only shadow reconstruction for one retired pressure-vessel subassembly and one completed design review. Sample no more than 40 archived records across design release, analysis, manufacture, test, nonconformance, disposition, correction, and approval. Define the event contract and one pinned decision-time projector, then test four fixtures: a duplicate import, a late test report, a superseded analysis, and a disputed specimen-to-configuration link. Compare the reconstructed configuration, included evidence, exclusions, and frontier with the signed review package; document missing provenance, ambiguous identities, replay disagreements, capture effort, and access concerns. Make no production or approval change from the result.","observable_state":"For a selected vessel design gate, reviewers can inspect the latest released geometry, bill of material, analyses, test reports, and dispositions, yet cannot obtain from one governed source a replayable view showing exactly which configuration-specific evidence was accepted, disputed, superseded, missing, or not yet known at the gate date.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"A composite pressure-vessel program maintains current design, analysis, manufacturing, test, deviation, and approval states in separate controlled tools. When a material substitution, geometry revision, late burst-test result, corrected analysis, or nonconformance disposition changes the qualification basis, document links and status fields are updated independently. The resulting package can state the present release but may not reconstruct which bounded engineering events produced it, which evidence applied to each configuration, or what reviewers knew at an earlier gate.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Even if existing PLM, traceability, or digital-thread tools contain all relevant artifacts, this candidate remains structurally distinct only if qualification assertions become the governed canonical history and configuration, evidence, and decision-time packages become versioned, frontier-visible views that can be discarded and rebuilt without editing that history.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial candidate; no claims of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size are made."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial formulation maps event-centered modeling to configuration-specific pressure-vessel qualification."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence or prior-art search was used; empirical status remains untested."],"operational_changes":["The first step is limited to a read-only shadow reconstruction of one retired subassembly and one completed review."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete actors, observable state, consequence, intervention, causal chain, and affected objective specified.","Structural and mechanism mappings preserve event identity, dual time, append-only correction, projection, frontier, replay, and reconciliation.","Decision authority, exclusions, halt conditions, falsifiers, risks, and a bounded evidence step specified."]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Bounded canonical event assertion","domain_realization":"A requirement acceptance, design release, analysis run, specimen build, test, nonconformance, disposition, waiver, correction, or approval with a defined engineering transformation or evidentiary claim."},{"archetype_element":"Stable event and participant identity","domain_realization":"Persistent IDs for events, vessel variants, parts, specimens, material lots, analysis models, requirements, documents, suppliers, and responsible roles, with unresolved or corrected identity links preserved."},{"archetype_element":"Event time and record time","domain_realization":"Separate timestamps or intervals for when a design, build, test, or disposition occurred or applied and when its evidence entered, changed, or was adjudicated in the controlled record."},{"archetype_element":"Participant-role, context, and transformation binding","domain_realization":"Each event names actors such as originator, analyst, witness, supplier, reviewer, and approver; identifies facility and configuration context; and states the geometry, material, evidence, or authority delta."},{"archetype_element":"Governed append authority and validation gate","domain_realization":"Only designated source adapters and configuration staff append assertions within their scope; schema, provenance, access, applicability, and idempotency checks reject or quarantine invalid submissions."},{"archetype_element":"Explicit ordering and concurrency","domain_realization":"Physical precedence, configuration dependency, source-local sequence, causal claims, and projector tie-breaks are recorded separately so concurrent analysis and testing are not forced into a false historical order."},{"archetype_element":"Correction and supersession lineage","domain_realization":"A corrected calculation, reclassified test, withdrawn waiver, or changed disposition appends a linked record while retaining the prior knowledge state except where governed redaction is required."},{"archetype_element":"Versioned projection definition","domain_realization":"Pinned projectors declare included event types, configuration-applicability rules, ordering, evidence-status treatment, output contract, and uncertainty behavior for as-designed, as-built/tested, qualification, and decision-time views."},{"archetype_element":"Projection frontier and completeness statement","domain_realization":"Each view reports processed sources, latest accepted sequence, lagging laboratory feeds, unresolved corrections, disputed identity links, excluded archives, and known unlogged engineering work."},{"archetype_element":"Replay, late-event handling, and reconciliation","domain_realization":"A late report rebuilds affected current projections while preserving the original gate view; deterministic replay and rebuild-and-diff checks compare derived qualification state with ledger history and declared invariants."},{"archetype_element":"Retention, redaction, and access control","domain_realization":"Purpose-scoped policies minimize personnel data, protect supplier and export-controlled evidence, propagate redactions to projections and snapshots, and preserve only the declared replay horizon."}],"title":"Replayable Qualification Basis for Composite Pressure-Vessel Design","version":0}