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

priority: high

query_terms: Mars rover autonomous drive fraction terrain selection

query_terms: first stage residual variance terrain fixed effects

query_terms: within-terrain-class placebo test rover productivity

query_terms: 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

query_terms: Mars rover terrain characterization timestamp drive plan

query_terms: a priori terrain classification orbital basemap pre-drive

query_terms: bad controls coefficient stability terrain block

query_terms: pre-treatment covariate provenance rover telemetry


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

query_terms: wild cluster bootstrap three clusters rejection rate Monte Carlo

query_terms: few clusters size distortion inference simulation

query_terms: between-rover cluster count G=3 hypothesis test

query_terms: MacKinnon Webb wild bootstrap few treated clusters


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.

query_terms: Mars rover mission schedule pressure drive-sol PDS NTRS

query_terms: sols-to-deadline end-of-campaign sprint operations

query_terms: omitted variable schedule selector autonomous fraction

query_terms: conjunction blackout tactical planning cadence rover


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.

query_terms: Shapley Owen variance decomposition collinear regressor blocks

query_terms: order-dependent incremental R-squared attribution

query_terms: autonomy generation hardware collinearity identification

query_terms: identified contrast versus partitioned variance share


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.

query_terms: negative control placebo blind-commanded rover segments

query_terms: downlink window operator shift placebo regressor

query_terms: pre-registered falsification threshold within-rover design

query_terms: zero-by-construction placebo autonomy productivity


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.

query_terms: continuous treatment dose balance table residualized

query_terms: selection into dose terrain ruggedness slope slip

query_terms: covariate balance autonomous fraction conditional

query_terms: treatment-on-the-treated continuous dose Mars rover


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.

query_terms: Goodman-Bacon decomposition negative weights staggered

query_terms: ATT(g,t) disaggregated building blocks rover generation

query_terms: forbidden comparison already-treated control DiD

query_terms: two-way fixed effects heterogeneous treatment timing


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.

query_terms: never-treated not-yet-treated clean control DiD

query_terms: covariate-conditional parallel trends rover landing sites

query_terms: Roth pretest sensitivity parallel trends violation

query_terms: wild cluster bootstrap small cluster DiD inference


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.

query_terms: doubly robust difference-in-differences propensity outcome

query_terms: propensity of autonomous fraction terrain covariates overlap

query_terms: covariate-conditional parallel trends dose selection

query_terms: Sant'Anna Zhao DRDID ATT estimator overlap


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

query_terms: binned dose-response curve continuous treatment within-unit

query_terms: cross-dose comparison selection bias forbidden

query_terms: no-selection-into-dose assumption intensity treatment

query_terms: marginal productivity autonomy dose same terrain class


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.

query_terms: no-anticipation assumption difference-in-differences placebo

query_terms: dose responds to lagged outcome reverse causation rover

query_terms: trust-ramped autonomous fraction mission sol trajectory

query_terms: pre-dose placebo productivity before treatment ramp


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.

raised_by: gangale

query_terms: Mars rover flight software certification V&V campaign cost

query_terms: in-flight autonomy upgrade mission assurance review burden

query_terms: testbed re-qualification certification cost rover

query_terms: software versus launch mass cost tradeoff break-even


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.

query_terms: TechPort TRL field autonomy generation threshold rover

query_terms: mission-independent capability discontinuity meters per sol

query_terms: autonomous drive fraction band generation boundary

query_terms: Enhanced Navigation AutoNav generation relabeling bright line


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.

query_terms: PDS traverse localization available drive time per sol field

query_terms: energy-bounded drive envelope normalization meters per sol

query_terms: Mars sol local solar time reference frame conversion

query_terms: downlink cadence planning cycle gating per-sol productivity


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.

query_terms: post-landing flight software upload rover productivity gain

query_terms: before after meters per sol same machine terrain class

query_terms: retrofit window foreclosed at launch hardware co-delivery

query_terms: MER Curiosity Perseverance flight software version history


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.

query_terms: lunar rover traverse productivity dataset meters per sol

query_terms: cross-platform coefficient stability transfer threshold

query_terms: VIPER Chang'e off-road autonomy benchmark archive

query_terms: external validity re-estimation different flight processor


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

query_terms: pre-registered falsifier post-landing autonomy upgrade absence

query_terms: Enhanced Navigation Perseverance per-sol productivity corroboration

query_terms: extensibility falsification NTRS flight software record

query_terms: Mokyr propositional base falsifiable would-falsify observation


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.

query_terms: marginal cost per meter per sol software development verification

query_terms: launch cost per kg mechanical increment break-even

query_terms: TechPort cost record mission cost estimating relationship

query_terms: dollars per unit productivity allocation rule autonomy


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.

query_terms: TechPort program cost dollars Mars rover mission class

query_terms: downlink allocation per sol instrument mass budget control

query_terms: autonomy generation endogenous to program funding

query_terms: Mars 2020 bundled compute mass autonomy upgrade confound


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

query_terms: within-budget within-platform autonomy increment per-sol step

query_terms: MER directed versus autonomous driving same rover delta

query_terms: Perseverance Enhanced Navigation post-landing measured gain

query_terms: funded-mission-class selection rival falsification observation


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.

raised_by: meadows

query_terms: autonomy by terrain interaction PDS drive-sol power

query_terms: additive separability mis-specification interaction term

query_terms: cross-terrain-class variance sample size rover panel

query_terms: coupled capability terrain feedback specification


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.

query_terms: planning cycle effort per meter commanding burden proxy

query_terms: stock versus flow ground-team trust accumulation rover

query_terms: uplink cycle count NTRS commanding effort metadata

query_terms: meters per sol flow understates autonomy planning loop


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

priority: normal

query_terms: leverage points goal paradigm versus parameter rover

query_terms: commanding paradigm shift Mars Sample Return sols freed

query_terms: PDS NTRS observable mission commanding reorganization

query_terms: upstream downstream lever drive-distance scalar


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?

query_terms: loss function integral binding stock irreplaceable vehicle

query_terms: catastrophic abort sol forgone caching MSR window

query_terms: downside tail risk one rover stock not flow

query_terms: expected loss integrated over residual mission horizon


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.

query_terms: recovery sols lost autonomy-attributable abort safe-mode

query_terms: net productivity per unit autonomous fraction PDS fault

query_terms: downside loop fault propagation rover autonomy ledger

query_terms: gross versus net effect sign autonomy doctrine


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?

query_terms: balancing stock erosion ground-team skill reserve margin

query_terms: reinforcing loop autonomous fraction ground intervention frequency

query_terms: goal-tier intervention tail risk unbudgeted leverage

query_terms: operational proxy commanded margin thinning over sols


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.

raised_by: mokyr

query_terms: onboard slip sinkage model prediction accuracy per generation

query_terms: stereo hazard geometry model coverage Mars rover

query_terms: propositional base Omega widening extensible technique

query_terms: visual slip prediction terramechanics ground truth series


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.

query_terms: flight software version history uplink lag distribution rover

query_terms: fraction autonomy improvements retrofitted versus frozen launch

query_terms: realized access cost knowledge diffusion aerospace stickiness

query_terms: post-landing software release V&V gated lag


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.

query_terms: knowledge base widening versus utilization habituation separation

query_terms: planning completeness decision horizon onboard planner generation

query_terms: adaptive intelligent navigation versus autonomous traverse utilization

query_terms: extensibility mechanism unidentified prescriptive habituation rival


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?

query_terms: post-landing flight software build count AutoNav ENav policy

query_terms: uplink sol attributable autonomous fraction change

query_terms: flight software change-control log driving policy rover

query_terms: retrofit count measured version history MER Curiosity Perseverance


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.

query_terms: mission assurance sign-off authority driving policy uplink

query_terms: principal-agent risk acceptance autonomy upgrade freeze

query_terms: technical feasibility versus institutional retrofittability rover

query_terms: abort safing risk gate flight software change control


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.

query_terms: certification authorization cost retrofit path expected loss

query_terms: uplink anomaly residual probability asset loss term

query_terms: Mars rover V&V re-qualification review burden magnitude

query_terms: software versus mass ledger institutional access cost


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).

raised_by: parasuraman

query_terms: exogenous instrument autonomous fraction downlink window staffing

query_terms: Earth-Mars geometry operations autonomy posture directive

query_terms: reliance calibration versus machine competence confound

query_terms: use misuse disuse trust learning instrument H1


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?

query_terms: commanded drive-distance ceiling route conservatism separable

query_terms: automation complacency bolder drives planning attention rover

query_terms: software channel versus operator reliance gain attribution

query_terms: command sparsity route margin PDS NTRS separability


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.

query_terms: competence-net meters per sol autonomy-attributable fault

query_terms: errors of commission omission automation reliance tail

query_terms: PDS fault event record safing abort netting robustness

query_terms: success-only productivity count omits fault tail H1


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.

query_terms: within-rover autonomous fraction trust-accrual curve sols

query_terms: running count aborts faults ground-overrides conditioning

query_terms: reliance learning trajectory false-alarm intervention rate

query_terms: calibrated reliance time path versus machine competence


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.

query_terms: types levels automation four stages information processing

query_terms: AutoNav Enhanced Navigation stage decomposition engineering

query_terms: think-while-driving action implementation timing stage 4

query_terms: autonomy scalar mis-specified stage capability versus timing


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.

query_terms: commanded-drive conservatism command sparsity route margin

query_terms: post-anomaly blind-segment insertion operations report

query_terms: time-varying reliance conservatism omitted confounder

query_terms: cry-wolf disuse over-trust dynamic separability coefficient


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.

raised_by: moderator

query_terms: Mars rover autonomy certification cost magnitude model

query_terms: lunar surface autonomy certification analog transfer

query_terms: V&V re-qualification review burden dollar estimate rover

query_terms: uplink anomaly expected loss certification ledger

status: partial