{"actors":["Lift engineer who authors the heavy-lift plan","Rigger who configures attachment points and verifies load geometry","Crane operator who executes the approved path","Independent lift supervisor who authorizes or withholds commitment"],"affected_objective":"Complete a planned heavy lift while keeping predicted crane capacity, ground-bearing pressure, load stability, and obstacle-clearance states inside the approved tolerance envelope.","arm":"COMMON_P1","authority_safety":{"authorized_first_step":"A lift engineer may run a shadow-mode replay on archived lift records and compare simulated predictions with recorded outcomes; the replay cannot approve or alter a live lift.","decision_authority":"The independent lift supervisor retains final go/no-go authority, while the crane operator and rigger retain unconditional stop-work authority regardless of the model output.","excluded_actions":["Automatic crane actuation or live path modification","Removal or reduction of code-required safety factors","Model-only approval without required engineering review and field verification","Use outside validated crane, rigging, load, ground, or weather conditions"],"halt_rollback":"Suspend model use if required inputs are missing, uncertainty crosses the declared limit, predictions repeatedly conflict with observations, or any operator identifies an unmodeled hazard; revert to the existing engineered lift-plan process without treating simulation output as approval."},"baseline":"The lift engineer selects crane position, boom configuration, rigging geometry, route, and timing using static calculations, drawings, checklists, prescribed safety factors, and expert review; discrepancies encountered after motion begins are handled through operator observation, stop-work, and replanning.","candidate_id":"predictive_precommitment_correction__engineering_design__COMMON_P1","causal_chain":["A proposed lift plan specifies crane placement, boom configuration, rigging, load path, timing, and target safety envelopes.","Measured load, site, ground, equipment, obstacle, and weather states enter a lift-specific consequence model before authorization.","The model previews the lift trajectory and estimates capacity utilization, ground reactions, load attitude, and clearances with uncertainty bands.","A comparison layer identifies predicted excursions beyond the approved envelope or margins too uncertain to classify.","The engineer translates each actionable predicted gap into a change to crane placement, rigging geometry, boom configuration, path, lift timing, or measurement requirements.","A staged commitment gate accepts the revised plan, requests another simulation, delays it for better inputs, escalates it for independent analysis, or rejects it.","Only a supervisor-approved plan proceeds, while operator and rigger stop-work authority remains intact.","Predicted states and assumptions are paired with realized measurements from the executed lift to expose forecast error and recalibrate or restrict the model."],"cell_id":"predictive_precommitment_correction__engineering_design","consequence":"A committed lift plan can encounter an avoidable clearance conflict, unstable load attitude, excessive ground reaction, or crane-capacity excursion after the load is in motion, when changing configuration or route is slower and more hazardous.","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Comparison with prior proposals is intentionally not performed under runtime isolation; this candidate is specifically instantiated as a pre-authorization heavy-lift trajectory and load-state gate.","experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp13_second_slot_policy60_20260806","intervention":"Insert a lift-specific digital-twin preview before the signed lift-plan release. It simulates the intended lift using measured context, represents forecast uncertainty, compares predicted trajectory and load states with approved envelopes, and requires revision, delay, escalation, rejection, or accountable acceptance before the load may leave its supported state. Preserve prediction-versus-realization records for subsequent calibration.","mechanism_mapping":[{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the preview, the team cannot convert the complete intended lift into predicted trajectory, loading, and clearance states before authorization.","mechanism_slug":"digital_twin_preview","role":"Simulates the intended crane, rigging, load, ground, obstacle, and weather configuration upstream of commitment."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without the gate, an adverse simulation remains advisory and the original plan can be authorized without resolving the predicted gap.","mechanism_slug":"staged_commitment_gate","role":"Makes plan release conditional on the prediction, uncertainty band, documented disposition, and accountable approval."},{"counterfactual_removal":"Without backtesting, systematic forecast error or validity drift can remain hidden while the gate continues to rely on the model.","mechanism_slug":"forecast_error_backtest","role":"Compares logged predictions with realized lift measurements and supports recalibration, scope restriction, or demotion to advisory use."}],"nearest_rivals":["Conventional engineered lift planning with static calculations and conservative safety factors","Pre-lift checklist and expert design review without an integrated consequence simulation","Live crane instrumentation with alarms and operator stop-work after motion begins","Physical trial lift used to observe balance before proceeding along the full route"],"negative_tests":{"intervention_falsifier":"In a preregistered shadow replay, the gated simulation fails to produce more correct precommitment dispositions than the conventional plan alone, or its suggested adjustments create new envelope violations when evaluated against held-out realized measurements.","problem_falsifier":"Archived cases and supervised observations show that material clearance, stability, capacity, and ground-reaction discrepancies are already detected and cheaply corrected before commitment by the baseline process, leaving no consequential correction window for the preview gate.","risks":["Incorrect site geometry, load mass, center-of-gravity, ground, or weather inputs can create false assurance.","Model scope may omit flexible-body motion, rigging interaction, soil behavior, or transient wind effects.","Conservative forecasts may cause unnecessary delay or configuration changes.","Teams may game inputs or tolerances to obtain approval.","Repeated benign predictions may weaken independent checks or operator vigilance.","Outcome data may be selectively recorded, corrupting calibration.","A forecast-triggered change may invalidate other assumptions unless the entire plan is re-evaluated."],"strongest_counterevidence":"A simpler combination of prescribed safety factors, independent calculation, a controlled trial lift, and live stop-work may handle uncertainty more reliably than a model whose most consequential inputs are difficult to measure."},"next_evidence_step":"Select 20 archived lifts from one facility and one crane class, freeze the model and decision thresholds before scoring, reconstruct only information available before authorization, and run the gate in shadow mode. Compare its predicted envelope classifications and proposed dispositions with held-out recorded measurements and incident-free plan outcomes; document missing inputs, false blocks, missed excursions, calibration error, and cases outside the validity boundary. Do not use results to authorize live lifts.","observable_state":"Before authorization: intended crane location, boom length and angle, counterweight, rigging topology, attachment points, load mass and estimated center of gravity, planned three-dimensional path, obstacle geometry, ground-bearing data, wind limits, model validity flags, predicted capacity utilization, ground reactions, load attitude, minimum clearances, and uncertainty bands. After execution: measured positions, loads, pressures where available, wind, deviations, stops, and realized minimum margins.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","problem":"Heavy-lift plans commit crane placement, rigging, route, and timing using information available before motion, yet those inputs are not always assembled into a trajectory-level prediction tied to the authorization decision. A clearance, stability, capacity, or ground-support mismatch may therefore become observable only after the load leaves its supported state, when correction requires suspending the load, reversing motion, or redesigning the lift under greater operational exposure.","proposal_index":1,"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Unlike static calculations, advisory simulation, or alarms during execution, the proposed structure uses an uncertainty-bearing consequence preview to change or block the lift plan before load transfer and then links realized lift states back to model calibration.","revision_record":{"claim_changes":["Initial version makes no novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect-size claim."],"conceptual_changes":["Initial version instantiates predictive precommitment correction at the heavy-lift authorization boundary."],"evidence_changes":["No external evidence or prior-art search was used."],"operational_changes":["Initial version limits the first evidence step to shadow replay on archived records."],"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Concrete commitment point","Observable target envelope and adjustable variables","Explicit prediction-to-adjustment path","Human decision authority and stop-work safeguards","Problem and intervention falsifiers","Bounded first evidence step"]},"schema_version":1,"structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Commitment point after which correction becomes hazardous or disruptive","domain_realization":"The load leaves its supported state under an authorized lift plan."},{"archetype_element":"Intended action specification","domain_realization":"The planned crane placement, boom and counterweight configuration, rigging geometry, load path, speed constraints, and timing."},{"archetype_element":"Target state and tolerance envelope","domain_realization":"Approved bounds for capacity utilization, ground-bearing pressure, load attitude, obstacle clearance, wind, and equipment configuration."},{"archetype_element":"Predictive consequence model with context inputs","domain_realization":"A lift-specific digital twin using measured load, equipment, site, ground, obstacle, and weather data to preview trajectory-level consequences."},{"archetype_element":"Predicted gap signal and uncertainty","domain_realization":"A predicted envelope excursion, insufficient margin, or uncertainty band that overlaps an unacceptable state."},{"archetype_element":"Adjustable control variables and precorrection rule","domain_realization":"Revise crane location, boom configuration, rigging, path, sequence, timing, or required measurement when a predicted gap crosses the declared decision threshold."},{"archetype_element":"Gateable commitment","domain_realization":"The supervisor cannot release the lift plan until each flagged gap is revised, delayed, escalated, rejected, or explicitly accepted within existing authority."},{"archetype_element":"Post-action calibration return path","domain_realization":"Logged predictions, assumptions, model version, decisions, and realized lift measurements are paired for forecast-error review."},{"archetype_element":"Validity and fallback safeguards","domain_realization":"Scope limits, independent engineering review, operator override, stop-work authority, input verification, drift checks, and reversion to the conventional planning process."}],"title":"Uncertainty-Gated Digital-Twin Precorrection for Heavy-Lift Plans","version":0}