Back to overview →
Module 01 / 04
One research line, two different formulations.
Temporal diagram 2025 Problem formalisation Super-critical operating modes: shutdown can be unacceptable; degraded operation must be reasoned about.
Temporal diagram
One research line, two different formulations.
Problem formalisationSuper-critical operating modes: shutdown can be unacceptable; degraded operation must be reasoned about.PUB‑01 · PUB‑02
Damaged plantIrreversible damage is made explicit and resource state drives a degraded control regime.EXP‑01
Structural pathResidual resources are mapped to feasible states and graph-based post-failure reconfiguration.EXP‑02
Structural survivability worksEXP‑03 verifies an audited path \(c_0\to c_1\to c_3\) and preserves degraded mission functionality.EXP‑03 · TURNING POINT
Model revisionThe successful experiment exposes missing guarantees: epistemic failure, sequence stability and horizon-aware choice.DISSERTATION REVISION
Unified frameworkCapability + admissibility + timing over a graph of physical and epistemic configurations.PRE‑01 · PRE‑02 · PRE‑03
EXP‑03 answered its question — and made the next question unavoidable.Open section
Turning point
EXP‑03 answered its question — and made the next question unavoidable.
WHAT EXP‑03 ESTABLISHED
Structural reconfiguration can preserve a degraded mission.
- irreversible resource loss is represented explicitly;
- candidate configurations are constrained by a directed graph;
- mission functionality and survivability can drive the choice;
- the executed path is auditable and reproducible.
WHAT IT DID NOT ESTABLISH
The selected sequence is not yet a guaranteed trajectory.
- \(\gamma(c)<1\) verifies each configuration, not arbitrary repeated switching;
- \(\arg\max S\) chooses the best node now, not the best path over a dwell interval;
- hardware operability alone cannot represent a model that is healthy in memory but wrong about the world;
- reaction time says how fast to switch, not how frequently switching remains admissible.