{"q": "Regress the within-rover autonomous-drive fraction on the full terrain block (terrain-class fixed effects plus a-priori covariates) and report the residual share of variance; name the quasi-random residual variation that identifies the effect and show a within-rover, within-terrain-class placebo split of the residual fraction with no productivity effect under H0, confirming the residual is not terrain relabeled.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "angrist_pischke", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Mars rover autonomous drive fraction terrain selection", "first stage residual variance terrain fixed effects", "within-terrain-class placebo test rover productivity", "selection on observables conditional independence terrain"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Establish that the a-priori terrain covariate is pre-determined relative to the autonomy decision and is not an outcome forecast: point to a terrain characterization timestamped before the drive plan, and report how the autonomous-fraction coefficient moves as the terrain block is added versus omitted (coefficient-stability diagnostic).", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "angrist_pischke", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Mars rover terrain characterization timestamp drive plan", "a priori terrain classification orbital basemap pre-drive", "bad controls coefficient stability terrain block", "pre-treatment covariate provenance rover telemetry"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Run a Monte Carlo on the candidate's three-between-rover-cluster (MER, Curiosity, Perseverance) panel structure and report the true rejection rate of the wild-cluster bootstrap at nominal 5 percent; if oversized, concede the between-rover generation coefficient is uninterpretable as a hypothesis test and only the within-rover estimate carries inferential weight.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "angrist_pischke", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["wild cluster bootstrap three clusters rejection rate Monte Carlo", "few clusters size distortion inference simulation", "between-rover cluster count G=3 hypothesis test", "MacKinnon Webb wild bootstrap few treated clusters"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Name the PDS/NTRS observable that proxies mission time-pressure at the drive-sol (sols-to-deadline, conjunction blackout, end-of-campaign sprint), put it on the right-hand side, and show the autonomous-fraction coefficient survives; or defend exogeneity once only terrain, not schedule, is conditioned out.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "angrist_pischke", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Mars rover mission schedule pressure drive-sol PDS NTRS", "sols-to-deadline end-of-campaign sprint operations", "omitted variable schedule selector autonomous fraction", "conjunction blackout tactical planning cadence rover"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Because autonomy generation and hardware class are one-to-one collinear across three rovers, report the variance-share decomposition under all regressor entry orderings plus a Shapley/Owen attribution, state the share range, and if it straddles 50 percent name the identified quantity (not an order-dependent R-squared) on which the H1-over-H0 verdict rests.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "angrist_pischke", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Shapley Owen variance decomposition collinear regressor blocks", "order-dependent incremental R-squared attribution", "autonomy generation hardware collinearity identification", "identified contrast versus partitioned variance share"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Construct a true negative control on blind-commanded segments (autonomous fraction zero by construction): regress per-sol productivity on the same within-rover regressors plus a placebo fraction built from a variable that cannot act through onboard autonomy (downlink-window timing, operator shift) and show that coefficient is null; pre-commit to the test and to the threshold at which a non-null placebo sinks H1.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "angrist_pischke", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["negative control placebo blind-commanded rover segments", "downlink window operator shift placebo regressor", "pre-registered falsification threshold within-rover design", "zero-by-construction placebo autonomy productivity"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Show the balance table on residualized autonomous fraction: do higher-autonomous-fraction drive-sols differ systematically in pre-drive terrain ruggedness, slope, and prior-sol slip after terrain-class fixed effects and covariates? If imbalance survives conditioning, the within-rover dose slope is a selection-into-dose artifact rather than the autonomy effect.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["continuous treatment dose balance table residualized", "selection into dose terrain ruggedness slope slip", "covariate balance autonomous fraction conditional", "treatment-on-the-treated continuous dose Mars rover"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Commit to estimating and reporting generation-by-terrain-by-mission-phase building blocks (the analogue of ATT(g,t)) aggregated with declared weights, and compute the Goodman-Bacon decomposition of the between-rover two-way fixed-effects specification to show whether negative-weight comparisons (a later generation using an earlier-generation rover-segment as control) enter the headline number.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Goodman-Bacon decomposition negative weights staggered", "ATT(g,t) disaggregated building blocks rover generation", "forbidden comparison already-treated control DiD", "two-way fixed effects heterogeneous treatment timing"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Name the clean control group: against which not-yet-treated rover-segments is each generation's effect identified, and show no segment already operating under a later autonomy generation enters another generation's control comparison; report the pre-treatment placebo within a shared terrain class with wild-cluster-bootstrap inference jointly with a Roth-style sensitivity analysis for plausible parallel-trends violations rather than a single flat-pretrend claim.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["never-treated not-yet-treated clean control DiD", "covariate-conditional parallel trends rover landing sites", "Roth pretest sensitivity parallel trends violation", "wild cluster bootstrap small cluster DiD inference"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Re-specify Section 4.1 as a doubly-robust ATT(g,t) modeling both the meters-per-sol outcome and the propensity of the autonomous-fraction choice on a-priori terrain covariates; report whether the H1 coefficient is consistent under either working model alone, and exhibit the estimated propensity-of-autonomous-fraction surface on PDS/NTRS so the panel can judge covariate overlap across the dose range.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["doubly robust difference-in-differences propensity outcome", "propensity of autonomous fraction terrain covariates overlap", "covariate-conditional parallel trends dose selection", "Sant'Anna Zhao DRDID ATT estimator overlap"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Partition PDS/NTRS drive-sols into a within-terrain-class binned dose-response curve (productivity by binned autonomous fraction) and show whether the slope is identified by within-unit dose changes on the same terrain rather than by comparing high-dose to systematically different low-dose drives; state the stronger no-selection-into-dose assumption that licenses the cross-dose reading, or restrict H1 to treatment-on-the-treated at observed doses.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["binned dose-response curve continuous treatment within-unit", "cross-dose comparison selection bias forbidden", "no-selection-into-dose assumption intensity treatment", "marginal productivity autonomy dose same terrain class"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Test no-anticipation: plot the within-rover autonomous fraction against mission sol and test whether the dose is predicted by lagged realized productivity (a trust-ramped dose driven by realized success makes the fraction a function of the outcome path); report a flat pre-dose placebo (productivity before the fraction was raised), paired with sensitivity to plausible violations since a flat pre-trend is necessary but not sufficient.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["no-anticipation assumption difference-in-differences placebo", "dose responds to lagged outcome reverse causation rover", "trust-ramped autonomous fraction mission sol trajectory", "pre-dose placebo productivity before treatment ramp"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Add a measured certification-cost variable (V&V campaign, testbed re-qualification, mission-assurance review, operational risk of an in-flight autonomy upload) to the right-hand side of the software-versus-hardware cost comparison, drawn from the cited flight-software-update records, and state whether the central prescription survives once the institutional cost of a certified in-flight autonomy upgrade is priced against launch-mass cost.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "gangale", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Mars rover flight software certification V&V campaign cost", "in-flight autonomy upgrade mission assurance review burden", "testbed re-qualification certification cost rover", "software versus launch mass cost tradeoff break-even"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Specify the exact TechPort/NTRS archive field and the numeric threshold on it (a TRL step, a documented autonomous-drive-fraction band, or a stated planning-horizon/cycle-time figure) at which a rover crosses G1 to G2 to G3, such that a blind analyst with only the archive and no mission press kit reproduces the same three generation boundaries; if the boundary is mission-described, show the drive segment the classification cannot adjudicate.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "gangale", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["TechPort TRL field autonomy generation threshold rover", "mission-independent capability discontinuity meters per sol", "autonomous drive fraction band generation boundary", "Enhanced Navigation AutoNav generation relabeling bright line"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Name the field in the PDS traverse-and-localization product that records available-drive-time-within-sol (or the energy-bounded drive envelope) for each drive-sol, and show meters-per-sol is normalized to that envelope rather than to a raw sol whose usable drive window varies with rover, season, latitude, and downlink cadence; specify the temporal reference frame and conversion that makes meters-per-sol commensurable across three rovers at three landing sites.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "gangale", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["PDS traverse localization available drive time per sol field", "energy-bounded drive envelope normalization meters per sol", "Mars sol local solar time reference frame conversion", "downlink cadence planning cycle gating per-sol productivity"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Across the NTRS/TechPort flight-software-update history for MER, Curiosity, and Perseverance, document whether any measured per-sol mobility-productivity gain was actually delivered to a landed rover by post-landing autonomy upload (before-and-after meters-per-sol on the same machine and terrain class), or whether every generational step is co-launched with new hardware so the retrofit window was foreclosed at launch; the software/hardware asymmetry collapses if most autonomy gains shipped only at launch.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "gangale", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["post-landing flight software upload rover productivity gain", "before after meters per sol same machine terrain class", "retrofit window foreclosed at launch hardware co-delivery", "MER Curiosity Perseverance flight software version history"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Pre-register the quantitative cross-platform transfer test: which off-Mars dataset (lunar VIPER/Chang'e traverse archive, terrestrial off-road benchmark, or a different-flight-processor Mars rover) the autonomy coefficient is re-estimated on, and what magnitude of cross-platform coefficient stability is required, before the fleet-wide investment doctrine is warranted.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "goswami_garretson", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["lunar rover traverse productivity dataset meters per sol", "cross-platform coefficient stability transfer threshold", "VIPER Chang'e off-road autonomy benchmark archive", "external validity re-estimation different flight processor"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Name the observable advance commitment that would falsify the Mokyr extensibility claim: what record of post-landing flight-software autonomy upgrades delivering measured per-sol productivity gains on an already-deployed rover would have to be ABSENT from the NTRS/mission-update record for extensibility to be rejected? Independently corroborate the Verma et al. 2025 Enhanced Navigation per-sol productivity figure, which currently rests only on the candidate's own citation.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "goswami_garretson", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["pre-registered falsifier post-landing autonomy upgrade absence", "Enhanced Navigation Perseverance per-sol productivity corroboration", "extensibility falsification NTRS flight software record", "Mokyr propositional base falsifiable would-falsify observation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the two cost curves that make the buy-productivity-with-software doctrine actionable: the marginal development-plus-verification cost of one additional unit of autonomous-drive-fraction productivity versus the marginal launch-cost of the equivalent mechanical increment, in dollars-per-meter-per-sol, and the real break-even where the software lever stops dominating, sourced from TechPort cost records or mission cost-estimating relationships; absent the crossing, the conclusion is a within-budget variance decomposition with an economic label.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "goswami_garretson", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["marginal cost per meter per sol software development verification", "launch cost per kg mechanical increment break-even", "TechPort cost record mission cost estimating relationship", "dollars per unit productivity allocation rule autonomy"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Construct at least one budget/mission-class control from public program records (TechPort program cost in dollars, RAD750-versus-newer compute class, X-band/UHF downlink allocation per sol, or total instrument mass), enter it in the between-rover specification, and state whether the autonomy-generation coefficient survives; if autonomy generation cannot be separated from the mission-class budget it rode in on, the G1/G2/G3 contrast is a budget index wearing an autonomy label.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "goswami_garretson", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["TechPort program cost dollars Mars rover mission class", "downlink allocation per sol instrument mass budget control", "autonomy generation endogenous to program funding", "Mars 2020 bundled compute mass autonomy upgrade confound"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the observable, advance-specified discriminator (from PDS/NTRS/TechPort, not mission self-description) that separates a genuine autonomy effect from funded-mission-class selection: a single mission where flight-software autonomy was upgraded post-landing under a flat/declining budget, delivering a measured per-sol step with mass, compute, and downlink held constant; quantify the within-budget within-platform per-sol step that converts the named falsifier into a delivered result.", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "goswami_garretson", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["within-budget within-platform autonomy increment per-sol step", "MER directed versus autonomous driving same rover delta", "Perseverance Enhanced Navigation post-landing measured gain", "funded-mission-class selection rival falsification observation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Can the PDS drive-sol panel settle whether the autonomy-by-terrain interaction is large enough that the additive horse-race specification (Productivity = b1 AutonomyGen + b2 Hardware + g Terrain) is mis-specified, given Section 5.2 predicts the autonomy effect is largest in rougher terrain? Characterize the cross-terrain-class variance and sample power to estimate the interaction, and justify reporting the additive coefficient as the contribution rather than the interaction.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "meadows", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["autonomy by terrain interaction PDS drive-sol power", "additive separability mis-specification interaction term", "cross-terrain-class variance sample size rover panel", "coupled capability terrain feedback specification"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Is the dependent variable measuring the governing stock (ground-team planning effort / trust accumulated per meter) or only an instantaneous downstream flow (meters-per-sol)? Build, from TechPort/NTRS records, a coarse proxy for planning-cycle effort per meter (commanding burden, uplink-cycle counts, ground-team effort), since the candidate concedes meters-per-sol cannot see the planning loop and would understate the autonomy channel.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "meadows", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["planning cycle effort per meter commanding burden proxy", "stock versus flow ground-team trust accumulation rover", "uplink cycle count NTRS commanding effort metadata", "meters per sol flow understates autonomy planning loop"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the goal the architecture optimizes (sols freed for sampling/caching in Mars Sample Return) and show whether the mass-versus-software lever is upstream or downstream of it; name the PDS/NTRS observable that would adjudicate whether the high-leverage gain is the commanding-paradigm shift (goal-level reorganization of mission commanding) rather than the drive-distance scalar.", "facet": "governance", "raised_by": "meadows", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["leverage points goal paradigm versus parameter rover", "commanding paradigm shift Mars Sample Return sols freed", "PDS NTRS observable mission commanding reorganization", "upstream downstream lever drive-distance scalar"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the doctrine's loss function explicitly as an integral over the binding stock, not a point estimate of forgone rate: if buy-productivity-with-software is adopted fleet-wide and an over-trusted drive or certification gap destroys a deployed asset, what stock is lost (vehicle, caching campaign, irreplaceable MSR-window sols) and over what horizon does the loss integrate?", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "meadows", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["loss function integral binding stock irreplaceable vehicle", "catastrophic abort sol forgone caching MSR window", "downside tail risk one rover stock not flow", "expected loss integrated over residual mission horizon"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Integrate the downside loop from the same PDS/NTRS archives used for the upside: report recovery-sols-lost and autonomy-attributable aborts/safe-mode entries per unit of autonomous-fraction gained alongside meters-per-sol gained, so the doctrine is scored NET rather than gross and the sign of the net effect can be established.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "meadows", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["recovery sols lost autonomy-attributable abort safe-mode", "net productivity per unit autonomous fraction PDS fault", "downside loop fault propagation rover autonomy ledger", "gross versus net effect sign autonomy doctrine"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Declare the tier of the intervention: is optimize-for-trusted-autonomy-fleet-wide a bounded-downside parameter tweak or a goal-level reorganization whose tail risk is unbudgeted? Does it erode the balancing stock that keeps autonomy safe (ground-team commanding skill and conservative reserve margin), and is there a measurable operational-record proxy (rising autonomous-fraction with falling ground-intervention frequency, or thinning commanded margin over sols) that would detect the reinforcing loop drawing that stock down before catastrophe?", "facet": "governance", "raised_by": "meadows", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["balancing stock erosion ground-team skill reserve margin", "reinforcing loop autonomous fraction ground intervention frequency", "goal-tier intervention tail risk unbudgeted leverage", "operational proxy commanded margin thinning over sols"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Add a per-generation series of onboard slip/sinkage and stereo-hazard-geometry model accuracy against terra-mechanical ground truth as the independent observable of a widening propositional base (Omega); show whether it deepened across G1/G2/G3, since if flat the Mokyr extensibility reading is falsified even while the autonomy-generation coefficient survives, and the design currently lets the coefficient stand in for Omega.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "mokyr", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["onboard slip sinkage model prediction accuracy per generation", "stereo hazard geometry model coverage Mars rover", "propositional base Omega widening extensible technique", "visual slip prediction terramechanics ground truth series"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Measure the realized access cost of retrofitting an autonomy increment onto a landed rover from flight-software version histories and NTRS deployment records: the per-asset V&V-and-uplink lag distribution and the fraction of autonomy improvements actually retrofitted to the surface versus frozen at next launch; if most autonomy gains shipped only at launch, the software/hardware retrofit asymmetry collapses.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "mokyr", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["flight software version history uplink lag distribution rover", "fraction autonomy improvements retrofitted versus frozen launch", "realized access cost knowledge diffusion aerospace stickiness", "post-landing software release V&V gated lag"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Supply the evidence that separates the propositional base widened (Mokyr extensibility) from the same fixed technique utilized more aggressively as ground teams gained confidence (prescriptive habituation): a knowledge-base-widening series (model accuracy, planning completeness/decision horizon) logically independent of utilization frequency, since the within-rover autonomous-drive-fraction contrast alone is observationally equivalent to trial-and-error habituation.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "mokyr", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["knowledge base widening versus utilization habituation separation", "planning completeness decision horizon onboard planner generation", "adaptive intelligent navigation versus autonomous traverse utilization", "extensibility mechanism unidentified prescriptive habituation rival"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Operationalize the software-is-retrofittable premise as a measured count from real flight-software version histories: across MER, Curiosity, and Perseverance, how many post-landing flight-software builds materially changed the AutoNav/ENav driving policy, on what sol was each uplinked, and what was the attributable change in autonomous-drive fraction or meters-per-sol?", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "mokyr", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["post-landing flight software build count AutoNav ENav policy", "uplink sol attributable autonomous fraction change", "flight software change-control log driving policy rover", "retrofit count measured version history MER Curiosity Perseverance"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "If the post-landing retrofit count is near zero, name the discriminator in mission-assurance review records and flight-software change-control logs that separates technical infeasibility (processor/perception/V&V-testbed cannot accommodate a better planner post-launch) from institutional un-retrofittability (governance assigns the entire downside of a bad uplink to the signer, freezing the policy regardless of feasibility): who holds sign-off authority, what abort/safing-risk gate a driving-policy change must clear, and whether rejected/never-proposed upgrades were blocked on a technical-feasibility or a risk-acceptance finding.", "facet": "governance", "raised_by": "mokyr", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["mission assurance sign-off authority driving policy uplink", "principal-agent risk acceptance autonomy upgrade freeze", "technical feasibility versus institutional retrofittability rover", "abort safing risk gate flight software change control"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Add a measured certification-and-authorization cost for the retrofit path specifically (V&V re-qualification campaign, testbed re-run, mission-assurance review burden, and an expected-loss term from the residual probability that an authorized uplink degrades or loses a landed asset, drawn from actual review records and documented uplink anomalies) into the software-versus-mass ledger; absent that term, the comparison pits full launch-mass cost against only the development cost of the software increment, omitting the institutional access cost of the retrofit. Supply the Mars rover-specific magnitude, which was not retrievable.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "mokyr", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["certification authorization cost retrofit path expected loss", "uplink anomaly residual probability asset loss term", "Mars rover V&V re-qualification review burden magnitude", "software versus mass ledger institutional access cost"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Specify an exogenous shifter of the autonomous fraction unrelated to per-drive hazard competence (downlink window, staffing, Earth-Mars geometry, an operations-policy autonomy-posture directive) and show the H1 coefficient survives instrumenting on it; absent that, a positive coefficient is observationally identical to the ground team learning to trust an unchanged machine (the use/misuse/disuse reliance-calibration confound).", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "parasuraman", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["exogenous instrument autonomous fraction downlink window staffing", "Earth-Mars geometry operations autonomy posture directive", "reliance calibration versus machine competence confound", "use misuse disuse trust learning instrument H1"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Show the autonomous-distance share is separable in PDS/NTRS from the commanded drive-distance ceiling and route conservatism, so the coefficient reflects the machine clearing hazards rather than the team commanding bolder, more sparsely specified drives as automation-induced complacency frees planning-cycle attention; absent that separation, on what evidence is the gain assigned to the software channel rather than evolving operator reliance?", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "parasuraman", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["commanded drive-distance ceiling route conservatism separable", "automation complacency bolder drives planning attention rover", "software channel versus operator reliance gain attribution", "command sparsity route margin PDS NTRS separability"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Construct a competence-net measure from PDS fault/event records (meters per sol after charging autonomy-attributable faults, anomalies, safing, aborts) and show H1 is robust to it; a trust-calibration account predicts the coefficient shrinks once the commission/fault tail is netted, a pure-competence account predicts it does not.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "parasuraman", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["competence-net meters per sol autonomy-attributable fault", "errors of commission omission automation reliance tail", "PDS fault event record safing abort netting robustness", "success-only productivity count omits fault tail H1"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Construct the within-rover time path of the autonomous fraction against cumulative sols and against the running count of autonomy-attributable aborts/faults/ground-overrides, and show the autonomy effect survives conditioning on this trust-accrual trajectory; the autonomous fraction is the ground team's revealed reliance decision and if it rises as a sol-indexed trust-accrual curve as false-alarm/intervention rates fall, the H1 coefficient loads operator reliance learning.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "parasuraman", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["within-rover autonomous fraction trust-accrual curve sols", "running count aborts faults ground-overrides conditioning", "reliance learning trajectory false-alarm intervention rate", "calibrated reliance time path versus machine competence"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Decompose autonomy generation into the Parasuraman-Sheridan-Wickens processing stages: specify which of the four stages (information acquisition, information analysis, decision/action selection, action implementation) each generation moved and to what level, and show the productivity gain attaches to the claimed stage; a single continuous autonomous fraction that mixes a stage-4 timing change (think-while-driving) with stage-2/3 capability is not interpretable as how much the machine is doing. Supply the NTRS/PDS engineering description of what each rover-autonomy generation actually automates.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "parasuraman", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["types levels automation four stages information processing", "AutoNav Enhanced Navigation stage decomposition engineering", "think-while-driving action implementation timing stage 4", "autonomy scalar mis-specified stage capability versus timing"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Build, from PDS command logs and NTRS operations reports, a measure of commanded-drive conservatism (command sparsity, route-margin, blind-segment insertion after an anomaly) and show the autonomous-fraction coefficient is not absorbing a time-varying ground-team conservatism response; the machine-capability effect must be separable from the operators' shifting reliance posture (cry-wolf/disuse versus over-trust) after false alarms and aborts.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "parasuraman", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["commanded-drive conservatism command sparsity route margin", "post-anomaly blind-segment insertion operations report", "time-varying reliance conservatism omitted confounder", "cry-wolf disuse over-trust dynamic separability coefficient"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Cross-platform corroboration of the certification-cost term: the only retrieved magnitude for an autonomy certification campaign is a lunar construction-pathfinder method paper (Mendoza et al. 2025), not a Mars rover figure; supply or model the Mars rover-specific re-qualification cost, review burden, and uplink-anomaly expected-loss so the retrofit-path certification cost is quantified rather than asserted to exist.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "moderator", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Mars rover autonomy certification cost magnitude model", "lunar surface autonomy certification analog transfer", "V&V re-qualification review burden dollar estimate rover", "uplink anomaly expected loss certification ledger"], "status": "partial"}