{"actors":["Environmental qualification test engineer","Signal-analysis engineer","Instrumentation engineer","Independent verification engineer","Electronics enclosure design owner","Qualification-record custodian","Chief engineer"],"affected_objective":"Prevent a single vibration anomaly selected from a broad qualification-data search from triggering a power-electronics enclosure redesign before the suspected resonance is confirmed under a fixed targeted test.","arm":"ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"The independent verification engineer may apply the protocol in shadow mode to one completed but unresolved qualification run, reconstruct its anomaly family, predefine one targeted retest, and compare evidence statuses without changing the enclosure or qualification disposition.","decision_authority":"Only the chief engineer may authorize a design change or qualification rejection; test and analysis personnel may register anomaly leads but may not promote them to confirmed failure modes.","excluded_actions":["Stopping production, rejecting the enclosure, or ordering redesign solely from an exploratory anomaly","Changing the targeted retest channel, frequency band, operating mode, or acceptance rule after confirmation data are viewed","Deleting quiet channels, null analyses, alternate filters, or non-selected time windows from the discovery record","Treating multiplicity adjustment as proof that an observed anomaly has a physical cause","Using exploratory anomaly status to assign personnel fault or misconduct"],"halt_rollback":"If attempted looks cannot be reconstructed, confirmation data were previously inspected, or the retest protocol changes after sealing, halt the pilot, preserve all records, restore the anomaly to exploratory status, and retain the existing engineering disposition pending ordinary review."},"baseline":"A conventional qualification anomaly review presents the most concerning vibration trace or spectral peak to the enclosure design team. Other sensor channels, frequency bands, operating modes, cycle intervals, filters, thresholds, and analyst views may remain distributed across test files and do not formally change the selected trace's evidentiary status.","candidate_id":"multiple_testing_discipline__engineering_design__ORDINARY_DIVERSE_P2","causal_chain":["A thermal-vibration qualification run produces many possible anomaly claims across accelerometers, axes, frequency bands, operating modes, cycle intervals, filters, and detection thresholds.","Each inspected combination provides another opportunity for noise, sensor artifacts, or ordinary transient variation to resemble a resonance exceedance.","An analyst selects the most concerning trace while the larger family of quiet, null, and alternative views is absent from the anomaly disposition.","The selected trace is interpreted using the credibility appropriate to one planned diagnostic test.","A chance-favored or analysis-sensitive spike can therefore be labeled an enclosure resonance and motivate a costly design response.","The protocol reconstructs and registers the complete anomaly family, records every attempted look, and labels search-selected signals as exploratory leads.","A multiplicity-aware screening rule determines which leads merit targeted confirmation without treating them as established failure modes.","An independent engineer then runs a pre-specified retest on a fresh test article or untouched qualification segment; only a lead satisfying the frozen confirmation rule becomes eligible for redesign or rejection consideration."],"cell_id":"multiple_testing_discipline__engineering_design","consequence":"An unconfirmed vibration spike could prompt added mass, mount changes, repeated qualification work, schedule disruption, or rejection of an acceptable enclosure, while attention and resources are diverted from other engineering risks.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This opportunity concerns false diagnosis of an intermittent qualification anomaly after searching sensor and signal-analysis views, followed by a targeted physical retest. It does not concern selecting a favorable structural configuration, substantiating a mass-reduction claim, or gating a searched bracket design for release.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Install a Qualification Anomaly Family Protocol for thermal-vibration testing of power-electronics enclosures. Before disposition, define the family of potential resonance claims across all recorded sensors, axes, frequency bands, operating modes, cycle intervals, transformations, filters, thresholds, and repeated interim reviews. Append every inspected view and detection rule, including null and discarded results, to a controlled anomaly ledger. Apply a declared false-discovery screening rule to prioritize follow-up while labeling every search-selected signal exploratory. For each prioritized lead, freeze the physical claim, sensor location, frequency band, excitation profile, operating mode, measurement method, and confirmation threshold before accessing fresh evidence. An independent verifier then performs the targeted test on a fresh article or a sealed, previously untouched test segment. Only a lead meeting the frozen rule may be labeled confirmed and submitted to the chief engineer for redesign or qualification disposition; rejected and unresolved leads remain in the ledger.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the registry, reviewers cannot determine how many sensor, frequency, time, filter, and threshold combinations created opportunities for the selected spike.","mechanism_slug":"claim_registry","role":"Records the anomaly family, every attempted analysis, responsible actor, result, and current evidence status."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without set-level error control, the most extreme trace can be prioritized as though it were the sole comparison.","mechanism_slug":"false_discovery_rate_control","role":"Applies a declared screening standard to the registered family when selecting anomaly leads for targeted follow-up."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without advance commitment, the team could redefine the frequency band, operating condition, or pass criterion after observing retest data.","mechanism_slug":"preregistration","role":"Freezes the physical anomaly claim and targeted confirmation procedure before fresh evidence is opened."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without independent fresh testing, reuse of the discovery run could turn another favorable analysis of the same fluctuation into apparent confirmation.","mechanism_slug":"replication_study","role":"Tests the selected resonance claim on a fresh article or untouched qualification segment under the frozen conditions."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without a mandatory confirmation stage, an exploratory signal could still trigger redesign or qualification rejection directly.","mechanism_slug":"confirmatory_follow_up","role":"Places targeted physical confirmation between broad anomaly search and consequential engineering disposition."}],"nearest_rivals":["Fault-tree analysis: organizes possible causes and consequences but does not calibrate the credibility of a signal selected from many inspected traces.","Root-cause analysis: investigates why an anomaly occurred but can begin from a search-selected artifact whose evidentiary status was never adjusted.","Signal-processing validation: checks filters and instrumentation but does not necessarily account for the full family of channels, windows, modes, and thresholds searched.","Repeatability testing: reruns a test, but without frozen criteria and untouched evidence the rerun can become another flexible search rather than confirmation.","Measurement-system analysis: assesses sensor accuracy and variation but does not by itself separate exploratory anomaly discovery from decision-ready evidence."],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is undermined if the ledger omits material analyst views, the screening family is redefined after results appear, the supposedly fresh retest evidence was used during discovery, or confirmed status can be assigned under post hoc acceptance criteria.","problem_falsifier":"The multiplicity diagnosis is falsified if the suspected resonance came from one pre-specified sensor, axis, frequency band, operating mode, time interval, transformation, and threshold with no alternative looks; instrumentation error or single-claim verification would then be closer.","risks":["Analysts conducting unregistered local searches before entering the formal workflow","Treating correlated signal views as independent when setting the screening rule","Excessive screening strictness that prevents inexpensive follow-up of useful leads","Confirmation contamination through disclosure of the discovery trace or fresh article response","False confidence when a confirmed signal still lacks a valid causal interpretation","Status laundering in presentations that describe exploratory signals as established defects"],"strongest_counterevidence":"A controlled record showing that the sensor, frequency band, excitation condition, analysis method, and threshold were fixed before the qualification run, with no alternative inspected claims and an independent repeat under the same criteria, would indicate that broad search is not the operative credibility problem."},"next_evidence_step":"Run a bounded shadow pilot on one unresolved enclosure qualification anomaly: reconstruct all sensor-channel, spectral, temporal, filter, threshold, and interim-review looks from the existing run; register their outcomes; freeze one targeted confirmation protocol; seal one unused test article or untouched data segment; conduct the independent retest; and compare the baseline anomaly disposition with the protocol-assigned status without authorizing redesign or rejection.","observable_state":"Reviewers can inspect a timestamped ledger containing the defined anomaly family, hashes or identifiers for every inspected trace and analysis configuration, null and selected results, the declared screening rule, exploratory status labels, the frozen targeted-retest protocol, evidence-seal history, independent retest result, and each status transition.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"During thermal-vibration qualification of a power-electronics enclosure, engineers may inspect many sensor channels, axes, frequency bands, operating modes, cycle intervals, filters, transformations, thresholds, and interim plots. A single alarming spectral spike can then be presented as evidence of an inherent enclosure resonance without accounting for the many opportunities to observe an extreme trace, and that diagnosis may guide redesign or qualification rejection.","proposal_index":2,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate changes whether a qualification anomaly may influence redesign according to the full family of signal views that produced it: unlike ordinary root-cause investigation, signal validation, or repeat testing alone, it preserves all attempted looks, controls selection of follow-up leads, and requires a frozen independent physical retest before promotion.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial version makes a bounded claim about evidentiary status for search-selected qualification anomalies without asserting novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial synthesis maps multiple-testing discipline onto diagnostic searches across instrumentation and signal-analysis views rather than configuration selection or design optimization."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence or prior-art search was used; explicit problem and intervention falsifiers define the initial evidence boundary."],"operational_changes":["Initial version assigns registration, evidence sealing, retesting, promotion, halt, and rollback authority and defines a non-decisional shadow pilot."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Independent engineering-design problem","Complete attempted-look inventory","Multiplicity-aware lead screening","Exploratory-confirmatory separation","Consequential authority gate","Bounded reversible evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Define the claim family","domain_realization":"Register all sensor, axis, frequency-band, operating-mode, cycle-interval, transformation, filter, threshold, and interim-review combinations capable of generating an enclosure-resonance claim."},{"archetype_element":"Inventory attempted looks","domain_realization":"Capture every inspected trace, spectral view, detection-rule execution, rerun, alternate preprocessing choice, null result, and discarded anomaly candidate in the controlled ledger."},{"archetype_element":"Set the error-risk policy","domain_realization":"Permit broad lead generation while withholding defect, redesign, and rejection status from search-selected signals because false diagnoses can cause consequential engineering action."},{"archetype_element":"Apply a multiplicity-aware rule","domain_realization":"Use a declared false-discovery screening rule to prioritize targeted retests across the registered anomaly family."},{"archetype_element":"Label claim status","domain_realization":"Mark each suspected resonance as exploratory, prioritized for confirmation, confirmed, rejected, unresolved, or invalidated."},{"archetype_element":"Confirm before costly action","domain_realization":"Require an independently executed, pre-specified physical retest on fresh evidence before the chief engineer considers redesign or qualification rejection."},{"archetype_element":"Preserve the discovery record","domain_realization":"Attach the complete analysis ledger, screening rule, frozen retest protocol, seal history, confirmation result, and status transitions to the controlled qualification record."}],"title":"Qualification Anomaly Family Protocol","version":0}