Auto sync: 2025-12-03 16:35:21 (20 files changed)

M .task/backlog.data M .task/pending.data M .task/undo.data D ERLM-Proposal-Review-Detailed.md D ERLM-Proposal-Review-Summary.md A Writing/ERLM/:w D Writing/ERLM/Discrete A Writing/ERLM/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Detailed.md
2025-12-03 16:35:21 -05:00 · 2025-12-03 16:35:21 -05:00 · 61ffd5ff23
commit 61ffd5ff23
parent 73a87c044d
20 changed files with 3385 additions and 1797 deletions
--- a/.task/backlog.data
+++ b/.task/backlog.data
@ -355,3 +355,5 @@
 {"description":"Final proofread and polish entire proposal","due":"20251205T050000Z","entry":"20251202T132246Z","modified":"20251202T132246Z","project":"ERLM","status":"pending","uuid":"5ba3929b-5ec3-4c9d-b30e-30fd8fe20b54","tags":["editing"]}
 {"description":"Compile and generate final PDF","due":"20251205T050000Z","entry":"20251202T132246Z","modified":"20251202T132246Z","project":"ERLM","status":"pending","uuid":"2a8e9294-aecc-434a-b5dd-a468baf8f4a8"}
 {"description":"ERLM proposal due","due":"20251206T050000Z","entry":"20251202T131547Z","modified":"20251202T132329Z","project":"ERLM","status":"pending","uuid":"f6968367-96f1-4ce2-8691-e45423e27456","tags":["writing"],"depends":["0888fdb8-f5cd-4374-a589-b7b3c1bbd472","0d921ea2-6211-4cd8-bbc4-4f9bf36794d3","14fee599-fe0f-4773-90fc-c5f78291f425","29cc8c63-1fb7-4523-9953-603467b929ee","2a8e9294-aecc-434a-b5dd-a468baf8f4a8","5ba3929b-5ec3-4c9d-b30e-30fd8fe20b54","689420d6-7191-42b6-b691-94ad39c8e0dd","9ce7d23c-0f56-49af-b97d-a684966cfbae","a4c027fa-f50d-4efc-ab61-5b8054810a80","d1fa2409-2f2f-4855-81be-14ee617df5d2","e354ab0c-cef7-41e2-bfb4-d98886e512b7"]}
 {"description":"Review and edit Goals and Outcomes section","due":"20251205T050000Z","entry":"20251202T132235Z","modified":"20251202T152712Z","project":"ERLM","start":"20251202T152712Z","status":"pending","uuid":"0888fdb8-f5cd-4374-a589-b7b3c1bbd472","tags":["editing"]}
 {"description":"Review and edit State of the Art section","due":"20251205T050000Z","entry":"20251202T132235Z","modified":"20251203T211706Z","project":"ERLM","start":"20251203T211706Z","status":"pending","uuid":"0d921ea2-6211-4cd8-bbc4-4f9bf36794d3","tags":["editing"]}
--- a/.task/pending.data
+++ b/.task/pending.data
@ -67,8 +67,8 @@
 [description:"Reach out to SOAR for job placement info and website content" due:"1764824400" entry:"1764681551" modified:"1764681551" project:"Chair-Search" status:"pending" uuid:"535c2ffc-f233-46f0-ac33-a93cbfd12f81"]
 [description:"Reach out to Material Advantage for job placement info and website content" due:"1764824400" entry:"1764681551" modified:"1764681551" project:"Chair-Search" status:"pending" uuid:"00072514-5622-4a44-9826-49690be83767"]
 [description:"Reach out to FSAE for job placement info and website content" due:"1764824400" entry:"1764681551" modified:"1764681551" project:"Chair-Search" status:"pending" uuid:"ca5f0450-483f-4a93-aba1-d06e71b4df5c"]
-[description:"Review and edit Goals and Outcomes section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764681755" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"0888fdb8-f5cd-4374-a589-b7b3c1bbd472"]
+[description:"Review and edit Goals and Outcomes section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764689232" project:"ERLM" start:"1764689232" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"0888fdb8-f5cd-4374-a589-b7b3c1bbd472"]
-[description:"Review and edit State of the Art section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764681755" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"0d921ea2-6211-4cd8-bbc4-4f9bf36794d3"]
+[description:"Review and edit State of the Art section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764796626" project:"ERLM" start:"1764796626" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"0d921ea2-6211-4cd8-bbc4-4f9bf36794d3"]
 [description:"Review and edit Research Approach section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764681755" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"9ce7d23c-0f56-49af-b97d-a684966cfbae"]
 [description:"Review and edit Metrics of Success section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764681755" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"29cc8c63-1fb7-4523-9953-603467b929ee"]
 [description:"Review and edit Risks and Contingencies section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764681755" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"e354ab0c-cef7-41e2-bfb4-d98886e512b7"]
--- a/.task/undo.data
+++ b/.task/undo.data
@ -1266,3 +1266,11 @@ time 1764681809
 old [description:"ERLM proposal due" due:"1764997200" entry:"1764681347" modified:"1764681416" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"writing" tags_writing:"x" uuid:"f6968367-96f1-4ce2-8691-e45423e27456"]
 new [dep_0888fdb8-f5cd-4374-a589-b7b3c1bbd472:"x" dep_0d921ea2-6211-4cd8-bbc4-4f9bf36794d3:"x" dep_14fee599-fe0f-4773-90fc-c5f78291f425:"x" dep_29cc8c63-1fb7-4523-9953-603467b929ee:"x" dep_2a8e9294-aecc-434a-b5dd-a468baf8f4a8:"x" dep_5ba3929b-5ec3-4c9d-b30e-30fd8fe20b54:"x" dep_689420d6-7191-42b6-b691-94ad39c8e0dd:"x" dep_9ce7d23c-0f56-49af-b97d-a684966cfbae:"x" dep_a4c027fa-f50d-4efc-ab61-5b8054810a80:"x" dep_d1fa2409-2f2f-4855-81be-14ee617df5d2:"x" dep_e354ab0c-cef7-41e2-bfb4-d98886e512b7:"x" depends:"0888fdb8-f5cd-4374-a589-b7b3c1bbd472,0d921ea2-6211-4cd8-bbc4-4f9bf36794d3,14fee599-fe0f-4773-90fc-c5f78291f425,29cc8c63-1fb7-4523-9953-603467b929ee,2a8e9294-aecc-434a-b5dd-a468baf8f4a8,5ba3929b-5ec3-4c9d-b30e-30fd8fe20b54,689420d6-7191-42b6-b691-94ad39c8e0dd,9ce7d23c-0f56-49af-b97d-a684966cfbae,a4c027fa-f50d-4efc-ab61-5b8054810a80,d1fa2409-2f2f-4855-81be-14ee617df5d2,e354ab0c-cef7-41e2-bfb4-d98886e512b7" description:"ERLM proposal due" due:"1764997200" entry:"1764681347" modified:"1764681809" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"writing" tags_writing:"x" uuid:"f6968367-96f1-4ce2-8691-e45423e27456"]
 ---
 time 1764689232
 old [description:"Review and edit Goals and Outcomes section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764681755" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"0888fdb8-f5cd-4374-a589-b7b3c1bbd472"]
 new [description:"Review and edit Goals and Outcomes section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764689232" project:"ERLM" start:"1764689232" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"0888fdb8-f5cd-4374-a589-b7b3c1bbd472"]
 ---
 time 1764796626
 old [description:"Review and edit State of the Art section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764681755" project:"ERLM" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"0d921ea2-6211-4cd8-bbc4-4f9bf36794d3"]
 new [description:"Review and edit State of the Art section" due:"1764910800" entry:"1764681755" modified:"1764796626" project:"ERLM" start:"1764796626" status:"pending" tags:"editing" tags_editing:"x" uuid:"0d921ea2-6211-4cd8-bbc4-4f9bf36794d3"]
 ---
--- a/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Detailed.md
+++ b/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Detailed.md
--- a/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Summary.md
+++ b/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Summary.md
@ -1,421 +0,0 @@
 # ERLM Proposal Writing Review - Executive Summary
 **Date**: December 2, 2025
 **Reviewer**: Claude Code
 **Framework**: Gopen's Sense of Structure
 ---
 ## Overview
 This proposal demonstrates strong technical content, clear methodology, and comprehensive coverage of all required elements. The research approach is well-conceived, and the progression from problem statement through solution is logical. The writing is generally clear and professional.
 **Key Strengths:**
 - Excellent technical depth and specificity
 - Strong motivation established through human factors statistics
 - Clear three-thrust research structure
 - Comprehensive risk analysis with concrete contingencies
 - Good use of specific examples (TMI accident, HARDENS project)
 **Priority Areas for Revision:**
 - Sentence-level: Strengthen stress positions to emphasize key claims
 - Paragraph-level: Sharpen point-issue structure in some sections
 - Section-level: Tighten organization in State of the Art section
 - Big picture: Strengthen "so what" connections throughout
 ---
 ## Priority Issues (Top 10)
 ### 1. **SOTA Section Length and Organization** [SECTION-LEVEL]
 **Location**: State of the Art section (358 lines)
 **Issue**: The SOTA section is the longest in the proposal and covers multiple distinct topics (current procedures, human factors, HARDENS). While comprehensive, it risks overwhelming readers and obscuring your key
 contributions.
 **Impact**: HIGH - Reviewers may lose track of your argument in the density
 **Recommendation**: Consider restructuring with clearer signposting. Each subsection should explicitly connect back to what gap you're filling. The current "\textbf{LIMITATION:}" callouts are excellent—ensure every major subsection has one.
 ### 2. **Weak Stress Positions Throughout** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: All sections, especially Goals and State of the Art
 **Issue**: Many sentences place old/known information in stress position (sentence-final), missing opportunities to emphasize new claims
 **Impact**: MEDIUM-HIGH - Reduces rhetorical impact of key claims
 **See Pattern**: "Stress Position Weakness" below for examples and fixes
 ### 3. **Missing "So What" Connections** [BIG PICTURE]
 **Location**: Transitions between major sections
 **Issue**: The proposal moves from problem → approach → metrics without always explicitly stating "this matters because..." at transition points
 **Impact**: MEDIUM-HIGH - Reviewers may not fully grasp significance
 **Recommendation**: Add explicit "if successful, this enables..." statements at the end of Goals section and beginning of Metrics section
 ### 4. **Passive Voice Obscuring Agency** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Research Approach, especially subsection introductions
 **Issue**: Passive constructions like "will be employed" and "will be used" hide who does what and reduce directness
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Reduces clarity and makes writing feel less confident
 **See Pattern**: "Passive Voice" below
 ### 5. **Point-Issue Structure in Paragraphs** [PARAGRAPH-LEVEL]
 **Location**: State of the Art, Risk sections
 **Issue**: Some paragraphs present information without first establishing why readers should care (the "issue")
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Readers may wonder "why are you telling me this?"
 **See Pattern**: "Point-Issue Structure" below
 ### 6. **Topic String Breaks** [PARAGRAPH-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Research Approach, subsection transitions
 **Issue**: Topic position doesn't always establish clear continuity from previous sentence, forcing readers to reconstruct connections
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Increases cognitive load
 **See Pattern**: "Topic Position & Continuity" below
 ### 7. **Nominalization Hiding Action** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Throughout, especially Research Approach
 **Issue**: Action buried in nouns (e.g., "implementation" instead of "implement", "verification" instead of "verify")
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Makes writing feel static rather than dynamic
 **Recommendation**: Convert nominalizations to active verbs where possible
 ### 8. **Long Complex Sentences** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: State of the Art (lines 45-51), Risks (lines 72-79)
 **Issue**: Some sentences exceed 40-50 words with multiple subordinate clauses, challenging comprehension
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Reviewers may have to re-read
 **Recommendation**: Break into 2-3 shorter sentences with clear logical flow
 ### 9. **Subsection Balance in Risks Section** [SECTION-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Risks and Contingencies section
 **Issue**: Four subsections of vastly different lengths (computational tractability gets more space than discrete-continuous interface, despite latter being more fundamental)
 **Impact**: LOW-MEDIUM - May suggest misaligned priorities
 **Recommendation**: Consider whether space allocation reflects actual risk magnitude
 ### 10. **Broader Impacts Underutilized** [BIG PICTURE]
 **Location**: Broader Impacts section (75 lines vs 358 for SOTA)
 **Issue**: This section is relatively brief given that economic impact is a major motivation for SMRs
 **Impact**: LOW-MEDIUM - Missing opportunity to strengthen value proposition
 **Recommendation**: Consider expanding economic analysis or adding brief discussion of workforce/educational impacts
 ---
 ## Key Patterns Identified
 ### Pattern 1: Stress Position Weakness
 **Principle** (Gopen): The stress position (end of sentence) should contain the most important new information. Readers expect climax at sentence-end and are disappointed when they find old information or weak phrases there.
 **Example 1** (Goals and Outcomes, lines 13-17):
 ```
 Current: "Currently, nuclear plant operations rely on extensively trained
 human operators who follow detailed written procedures and strict regulatory
 requirements to manage reactor control."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Sentence ends with "manage reactor control"—a restatement of the opening. The key claim is buried mid-sentence: "extensively trained...detailed procedures...strict requirements"
 - **Fixed**: "Currently, nuclear plant operations require extensively trained human operators following detailed written procedures under strict regulatory requirements."
 **Example 2** (State of the Art, lines 53-54):
 ```
 Current: "Procedures lack formal verification of correctness and completeness."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Ends weakly with "completeness" which is minor compared to the bigger issue
 - **Fixed**: "Procedures lack formal verification, leaving correctness and completeness unproven."
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 41-42):
 ```
 Current: "The following sections discuss how these thrusts will be accomplished."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Pure metadiscourse in stress position, provides no new information
 - **Fixed**: Delete this sentence—the enumeration provides sufficient transition, or combine with previous sentence: "...through three main thrusts, each detailed below."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Goals lines 29-32: "...we will combine formal methods..."
 - State of the Art lines 81-85: "...no application of hybrid control theory exists..."
 - Research Approach lines 115-116: "...enable progression to the next step..."
 - Metrics lines 29-31: "...makes this metric directly relevant..."
 - Risks lines 12-13: "...identification of remaining barriers to deployment"
 **How to fix**: Identify the most important new claim in each sentence and move it to the end. Often this means converting from "X does Y to achieve Z" to "X achieves Z by doing Y."
 ---
 ### Pattern 2: Passive Voice Obscuring Agency
 **Principle** (Gopen): Passive voice obscures who does what and reduces directness. In proposal writing, active voice demonstrates confidence and control. Use passive only when the agent is truly unimportant or unknown.
 **Example 1** (Research Approach, line 118):
 ```
 Current: "We will employ state-of-the-art reactive synthesis tools..."
 ```
 - **Issue**: "Employ" is weak; you're not hiring the tools, you're using them
 - **Better**: "We will use Strix, a state-of-the-art reactive synthesis tool..."
 - **Best**: "Strix will translate our temporal logic specifications into deterministic automata..."
 (Shows what the tool *does*, not just that you'll use it)
 **Example 2** (Research Approach, line 207):
 ```
 Current: "Control barrier functions will be employed when..."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Passive—who employs them? And "employed" sounds formal/stuffy
 - **Fixed**: "We will use control barrier functions to verify..." or better "Control barrier functions verify..."
 **Example 3** (Metrics, line 67):
 ```
 Current: "This milestone delivers an internal technical report..."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Milestones don't deliver, people do
 - **Fixed**: "We will deliver an internal technical report documenting..."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Research Approach lines 161, 175, 206, 220: "will be employed", "will be developed", "will be used"
 - Metrics lines 69, 73, 79, 84: "...delivers a [document]"
 - Risks lines 57, 109, 163: various passives
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify the real agent (usually "we")
 2. Make agent the subject: "We will X" or "X will Y"
 3. Choose strong active verbs: use/apply/develop/verify (not employ/utilize)
 ---
 ### Pattern 3: Point-Issue Structure Weakness
 **Principle** (Gopen): Paragraphs should begin by establishing (1) the point/claim being made and (2) why it matters (the issue). Discussion then supports that point. Readers need context before details.
 **Example 1** (State of the Art, lines 88-107):
 ```
 Current paragraph begins: "The persistent role of human error in nuclear
 safety incidents, despite decades of improvements..."
 ```
 - **Analysis**: This paragraph immediately dives into the "persistent role" without first establishing why we're discussing human factors at all. Reader thinks: "Wait, weren't we just talking about procedures?"
 - **Fixed**: Add issue statement first: "Human factors provide the most compelling motivation for formal automated control. Despite decades of improvements in training and procedures, human error persists in 70-80% of nuclear incidents—suggesting that operator-based control faces fundamental, not remediable, limitations."
 **Example 2** (Risks, first paragraph):
 ```
 Current: "This research relies on several critical assumptions that, if
 invalidated, would require scope adjustment..."
 ```
 - **Analysis**: Good—this establishes both point (critical assumptions exist) and issue (invalidity requires adjustment) immediately. The paragraph then delivers on this promise. This is a good model!
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 166-169):
 ```
 Current: "While discrete system components will be synthesized with correctness
 guarantees, they represent only half of the complete system."
 ```
 - **Analysis**: Good issue statement (discrete alone insufficient), but could be sharper about the point. What will this section show?
 - **Fixed**: "While discrete system components will be synthesized with correctness guarantees, they represent only half of the complete system. This section describes how we will develop continuous control modes, verify their correctness, and address the unique verification challenges at the discrete-continuous interface."
 **Similar instances**:
 - State of the Art lines 13-34: long paragraph with delayed point
 - Goals lines 103-119: impact paragraph could be tighter
 - Approach lines 178-208: three-mode classification needs clearer framing
 **How to fix**:
 1. First sentence should state the paragraph's point
 2. Second sentence (or same sentence) should state why this matters
 3. Remaining sentences provide supporting detail
 ---
 ### Pattern 4: Topic Position & Continuity
 **Principle** (Gopen): The topic position (beginning of sentence) should contain old/familiar information that links to what came before. This creates flow and coherence. Abrupt topic shifts disorient readers.
 **Example 1** (Goals, lines 18-23):
 ```
 Sentence 1: "...this reliance on human operators prevents the introduction
 of autonomous control capabilities..."
 Sentence 2: "Emerging technologies like small modular reactors face
 significantly higher per-megawatt staffing costs..."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Topic shifts abruptly from "reliance on operators" to "emerging technologies". Connection exists (both about staffing challenges) but isn't explicit
 - **Fixed**: "...prevents autonomous control capabilities. This limitation creates particular challenges for emerging technologies like small modular reactors, which face significantly higher per-megawatt staffing costs..."
 **Example 2** (State of the Art, lines 234-243):
 ```
 Sentence about what HARDENS addressed: "...discrete digital control logic..."
 Next sentence: "However, the project did not address continuous dynamics..."
 ```
 - **Analysis**: Good use of "however, the project" in topic position—maintains focus on HARDENS while pivoting to limitation. This is a good model!
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 56-58):
 ```
 Sentence 1: "...we may be able to translate them into logical formulae..."
 Sentence 2: "Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) provides four fundamental operators..."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Abrupt topic shift from "translating procedures" to "LTL provides". Missing: why LTL? Why now?
 - **Fixed**: "...translate them into logical formulae. To formalize these procedures, we will use Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), which provides four fundamental operators..."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Goals lines 23-27: "emerging technologies" → "what is needed"
 - State of the Art lines 72-74: control modes → division between automated/human
 - Approach lines 183-185: stabilizing mode example → transitory mode definition
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify the topic of the previous sentence
 2. Begin next sentence with something related to that topic
 3. Use transitional phrases when shifting topics: "This [previous thing] leads to [new thing]"
 ---
 ### Pattern 5: Long Complex Sentences
 **Principle**: Sentences with multiple subordinate clauses (especially over 35-40 words) tax reader working memory. Breaking into multiple sentences often improves clarity without losing sophistication.
 **Example 1** (State of the Art, lines 48-51):
 ```
 Current (51 words): "Procedures undergo technical evaluation, simulator
 validation testing, and biennial review as part of operator requalification
 under 10 CFR 55.59, but despite these rigorous development processes,
 procedures fundamentally lack formal verification of key safety properties."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Long sentence with list, subordinate clause, and contrast—hard to parse
 - **Fixed (2 sentences)**: "Procedures undergo technical evaluation, simulator validation testing, and biennial review as part of operator requalification under 10 CFR 55.59. Despite these rigorous development processes, procedures fundamentally lack formal verification of key safety properties."
 **Example 2** (Risks, lines 72-78):
 ```
 Current (57 words): "Temporal logic operates on boolean predicates, while
 continuous control requires reasoning about differential equations and
 reachable sets, and guard conditions that require complex nonlinear predicates
 may resist boolean abstraction, making synthesis intractable."
 ```
 - **Issue**: Run-on with multiple clauses strung together with commas
 - **Fixed (3 sentences)**: "Temporal logic operates on boolean predicates, while continuous control requires reasoning about differential equations and reachable sets. Guard conditions requiring complex nonlinear predicates may resist boolean abstraction. This mismatch could make synthesis intractable."
 **Similar instances**:
 - State of the Art lines 44-51: procedure development description
 - Research Approach lines 40-45: hybrid system description
 - Risks lines 17-24: computational tractability discussion
 - Broader Impacts lines 13-23: economic analysis
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify natural breakpoints (usually where you have "and" or "but")
 2. Create new sentences at these breaks
 3. Ensure each new sentence has clear topic position
 4. May need to repeat/reference previous sentence's subject for clarity
 ---
 ## Section-Level Issues
 ### Goals and Outcomes Section
 **Strengths**: Excellent structure with clear goal → problem → approach → outcomes → impact progression. The four-paragraph opening is very strong.
 **Issues**:
 - Lines 29-53 (Approach paragraph): This is dense and tries to cover too much. Consider breaking into two paragraphs: one on the approach concept, one on the hypothesis and rationale.
 - Outcomes enumeration: Very clear, but could strengthen the transition from strategy to outcome in each item. Currently reads as "we'll do X. [new sentence] This enables Y." Consider: "We'll do X, enabling Y."
 ### State of the Art Section
 **Strengths**: Comprehensive, well-researched, excellent use of the HARDENS case study as both positive example and gap identifier.
 **Issues**:
 - **Length**: At 358 lines, this risks losing readers. Most concerning: readers may forget your framing by the time they reach your contribution.
 - **Organization**: Four major subsections (procedures, human factors, HARDENS, research imperative) would benefit from a roadmap sentence at the beginning: "To understand the need for hybrid control synthesis, we first examine..."
 - **Balance**: HARDENS subsection is 89 lines—nearly 25% of SOTA. While impressive, consider whether this should be a separate section or whether some detail could move to an appendix.
 - **Transition to Approach**: The "Research Imperative" subsection is excellent but feels like it belongs at the start of Research Approach rather than end of SOTA.
 ### Research Approach Section
 **Strengths**: Clear three-thrust structure, good use of equations and examples, strong technical detail.
 **Issues**:
 - **Subsection transitions**: The transitions between the three main subsections (Procedures→Temporal, Temporal→Discrete, Discrete→Continuous) could be smoother. Each starts somewhat abruptly.
 - **SmAHTR introduction**: The SmAHTR demonstration case is introduced suddenly at line 253. Consider introducing it earlier (perhaps in Goals section or at start of Approach) so readers know it's coming.
 - **Three-mode classification**: Lines 178-208 present the stabilizing/transitory/expulsory framework, which is innovative. This deserves more prominence—consider highlighting it as a key contribution.
 ### Metrics of Success Section
 **Strengths**: TRL framework is well-justified, progression through levels is clear.
 **Issues**:
 - **Defensive tone**: Lines 11-30 spend considerable space justifying why TRL is appropriate. This is good but could be more concise. Consider: one paragraph on why TRLs (lines 10-19) rather than two.
 - **Grading criteria**: The TRL definitions (3, 4, 5) are excellent. Very concrete and measurable.
 ### Risks and Contingencies Section
 **Strengths**: Comprehensive, each risk has indicators and contingencies, well-organized.
 **Issues**:
 - **Subsection balance**: Four subsections range from 41 lines (computational) to 65 lines (discrete-continuous). Ensure space reflects actual risk level.
 - **Mitigation vs. contingency**: Some subsections blur "mitigation" (preventing problems) and "contingency" (response if they occur). Consider clarifying this structure.
 ### Broader Impacts Section
 **Strengths**: Clear economic motivation, good connection to SMRs and datacenter application.
 **Issues**:
 - **Brevity**: At 75 lines, this is the shortest technical section. Given that economic viability is a key motivation, consider expanding.
 - **Missed opportunities**: Could briefly mention workforce/educational impacts (training future engineers in formal methods), equity (providing reliable clean energy to underserved areas), broader applicability beyond nuclear.
 ### Budget Section
 **Brief review**: Budget is comprehensive, well-justified, appropriate. Minor note: Consider whether the high-performance workstation (Year 1) might need upgrades in Year 2-3 as synthesis scales up.
 ### Schedule Section
 **Brief review**: Schedule is ambitious but realistic. Six trimesters for dissertation research is reasonable. Publication strategy is smart (nuclear community first, then broader control theory community). Minor note: Line 73 has a space issue ("t ranslation").
 ---
 ## Big Picture Observations
 ### Narrative and Argument Structure
 **Strengths**:
 - Clear problem-solution arc: operators make errors → procedures lack formal guarantees → hybrid control synthesis provides guarantees
 - Good use of motivating examples (TMI, human error statistics, HARDENS)
 - Technical progression is logical: discrete synthesis → continuous verification → integrated system
 **Opportunities**:
 1. **Strengthen "so what" transitions**: The proposal sometimes presents information without explicitly stating significance. Add more "This matters because..." statements.
 2. **Emphasize novelty earlier**: The three-mode classification and discrete-continuous interface verification are novel contributions. Signal this earlier and more explicitly.
 3. **Create more callbacks**: When describing Research Approach, refer back to specific limitations identified in State of the Art. Currently these connections are implicit.
 ### Rhetorical Effectiveness
 **Credibility established through**:
 - Comprehensive literature review
 - Specific technical detail
 - Access to industry hardware (Emerson partnership)
 - Prior conference recognition (best student paper)
 **Value proposition**:
 - Clear economic impact (O&M cost reduction)
 - Safety improvement (mathematical guarantees vs. human operators)
 - Broader applicability (methodology generalizes)
 **Could strengthen**:
 - More explicit statements of what's novel vs. what's established practice
 - Stronger emphasis on the unique combination of discrete synthesis + continuous verification (others do one or the other, not both)
 ### Content Gaps and Consistency
 **Terminology**:
 - Generally consistent
 - Good introduction of technical terms (hybrid automata, temporal logic, reachability analysis)
 - Minor: "correct by construction" vs. "provably correct"—used interchangeably, which is fine, but could note they're synonymous
 **Scope consistency**:
 - Excellent—stays focused on startup procedures for SmAHTR
 - Appropriately acknowledges limitations (TRL 5, not deployment-ready)
 - Risk section addresses what happens if scope must narrow
 **Potential gaps**:
 1. **Cybersecurity**: Not mentioned. For autonomous nuclear control, shouldn't there be at least a paragraph on security verification?
 2. **Regulatory path**: You mention "regulatory requirements" but don't detail what NRC approval process would look like. Even a paragraph would strengthen credibility.
 3. **Comparison with alternatives**: What about machine learning approaches to autonomous control? Worth a paragraph explaining why formal methods are superior for safety-critical systems.
 ---
 ## Gopen Framework Quick Reference
 **Stress Position**: End of sentence should contain most important new information. Readers expect climax there.
 **Topic Position**: Beginning of sentence should contain familiar information that links to previous sentence. Creates flow.
 **Point-Issue Structure**: Paragraphs should open by stating (1) the point/claim and (2) why it matters, before providing supporting detail.
 **Topic String**: The chain of topics across sentences in a paragraph. Strong topic strings create coherence; broken ones confuse readers.
 **Old→New Information Flow**: Information should flow from familiar (old) to unfamiliar (new) within sentences and paragraphs.
 ---
 ## Next Steps
 1. **Start with Priority Issues 1-3**: These have the highest impact
 2. **Apply Patterns**: Use the pattern examples to fix similar instances throughout
 3. **Consult Detailed Document**: For comprehensive checkbox-by-checkbox revisions
 4. **Section-by-section revision**: Work through one section at a time, applying patterns
 5. **Final pass for consistency**: Ensure changes maintain consistent terminology and tone
 This proposal has strong technical content and a solid structure. The revisions suggested here will strengthen clarity, emphasize key contributions, and make the argument even more compelling for reviewers. Good luck with your revisions!
--- a/Writing/ERLM/:w
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/:w
@ -0,0 +1,627 @@
 # ERLM Proposal Writing Review - Executive Summary
 **Date**: December 2, 2025 **Reviewer**: Claude Code
 **Framework**: Gopen's Sense of Structure
 ---
 ## Overview
 This proposal demonstrates strong technical content, clear
 methodology, and comprehensive coverage of all required
 elements. The research approach is well-conceived, and the
 progression from problem statement through solution is
 logical. The writing is generally clear and professional.
 **Key Strengths:**
 - Excellent technical depth and specificity
 - Strong motivation established through human factors
 statistics
 - Clear three-thrust research structure
 - Comprehensive risk analysis with concrete contingencies
 - Good use of specific examples (TMI accident, HARDENS
 project)
 **Priority Areas for Revision:**
 - Sentence-level: Strengthen stress positions to emphasize
 key claims
 - Paragraph-level: Sharpen point-issue structure in some
 sections
 - Section-level: Tighten organization in State of the Art
 section
 - Big picture: Strengthen "so what" connections throughout
 ---
 ## Priority Issues (Top 10)
 ### 1. **SOTA Section Length and Organization**
 [SECTION-LEVEL] **Location**: State of the Art section (358
 lines) **Issue**: The SOTA section is the longest in the
 proposal and covers multiple distinct topics (current
 procedures, human factors, HARDENS). While comprehensive, it
 risks overwhelming readers and obscuring your key
 contributions. **Impact**: HIGH - Reviewers may lose track
 of your argument in the density **Recommendation**:
 Consider restructuring with clearer signposting. Each
 subsection should explicitly connect back to what gap
 you're filling. The current "\textbf{LIMITATION:}" callouts
 are excellent—ensure every major subsection has one.
 ### 2. **Weak Stress Positions Throughout** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: All sections, especially Goals and State of
 the Art **Issue**: Many sentences place old/known
 information in stress position (sentence-final), missing
 opportunities to emphasize new claims **Impact**:
 MEDIUM-HIGH - Reduces rhetorical impact of key claims **See
 Pattern**: "Stress Position Weakness" below for examples and
 fixes
 ### 3. **Missing "So What" Connections** [BIG PICTURE]
 **Location**: Transitions between major sections **Issue**:
 The proposal moves from problem → approach → metrics without
 always explicitly stating "this matters because..." at
 transition points **Impact**: MEDIUM-HIGH - Reviewers may
 not fully grasp significance **Recommendation**: Add
 explicit "if successful, this enables..." statements at the
 end of Goals section and beginning of Metrics section
 ### 4. **Passive Voice Obscuring Agency** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Research Approach, especially subsection
 introductions **Issue**: Passive constructions like "will be
 employed" and "will be used" hide who does what and reduce
 directness **Impact**: MEDIUM - Reduces clarity and makes
 writing feel less confident **See Pattern**: "Passive Voice"
 below
 ### 5. **Point-Issue Structure in Paragraphs**
 [PARAGRAPH-LEVEL] **Location**: State of the Art, Risk
 sections **Issue**: Some paragraphs present information
 without first establishing why readers should care (the
 "issue") **Impact**: MEDIUM - Readers may wonder "why are
 you telling me this?" **See Pattern**: "Point-Issue
 Structure" below
 ### 6. **Topic String Breaks** [PARAGRAPH-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Research Approach, subsection transitions
 **Issue**: Topic position doesn't always establish clear
 continuity from previous sentence, forcing readers to
 reconstruct connections **Impact**: MEDIUM - Increases
 cognitive load **See Pattern**: "Topic Position &
 Continuity" below
 ### 7. **Nominalization Hiding Action** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Throughout, especially Research Approach
 **Issue**: Action buried in nouns (e.g., "implementation"
 instead of "implement", "verification" instead of "verify")
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Makes writing feel static rather than
 dynamic **Recommendation**: Convert nominalizations to
 active verbs where possible
 ### 8. **Long Complex Sentences** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: State of the Art (lines 45-51), Risks (lines
 72-79) **Issue**: Some sentences exceed 40-50 words with
 multiple subordinate clauses, challenging comprehension
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Reviewers may have to re-read
 **Recommendation**: Break into 2-3 shorter sentences with
 clear logical flow
 ### 9. **Subsection Balance in Risks Section**
 [SECTION-LEVEL] **Location**: Risks and Contingencies
 section **Issue**: Four subsections of vastly different
 lengths (computational tractability gets more space than
 discrete-continuous interface, despite latter being more
 fundamental) **Impact**: LOW-MEDIUM - May suggest misaligned
 priorities **Recommendation**: Consider whether space
 allocation reflects actual risk magnitude
 ### 10. **Broader Impacts Underutilized** [BIG PICTURE]
 **Location**: Broader Impacts section (75 lines vs 358 for
 SOTA) **Issue**: This section is relatively brief given that
 economic impact is a major motivation for SMRs **Impact**:
 LOW-MEDIUM - Missing opportunity to strengthen value
 proposition **Recommendation**: Consider expanding economic
 analysis or adding brief discussion of workforce/educational
 impacts
 ---
 ## Key Patterns Identified
 ### Pattern 1: Stress Position Weakness
 **Principle** (Gopen): The stress position (end of sentence)
 should contain the most important new information. Readers
 expect climax at sentence-end and are disappointed when they
 find old information or weak phrases there.
 **Example 1** (Goals and Outcomes, lines 13-17): ```
 Current: "Currently, nuclear plant operations rely on
 extensively trained human operators who follow detailed
 written procedures and strict regulatory requirements to
 manage reactor control." ```
 - **Issue**: Sentence ends with "manage reactor control"—a
 restatement of the opening. The key claim is buried
 mid-sentence: "extensively trained...detailed
 procedures...strict requirements"
 - **Fixed**: "Currently, nuclear plant operations require
 extensively trained human operators following detailed
 written procedures under strict regulatory requirements."
 **Example 2** (State of the Art, lines 53-54): ``` Current:
 "Procedures lack formal verification of correctness and
 completeness." ```
 - **Issue**: Ends weakly with "completeness" which is minor
 compared to the bigger issue
 - **Fixed**: "Procedures lack formal verification, leaving
 correctness and completeness unproven."
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 41-42): ``` Current:
 "The following sections discuss how these thrusts will be
 accomplished." ```
 - **Issue**: Pure metadiscourse in stress position, provides
 no new information
 - **Fixed**: Delete this sentence—the enumeration provides
 sufficient transition, or combine with previous sentence:
 "...through three main thrusts, each detailed below."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Goals lines 29-32: "...we will combine formal methods..."
 - State of the Art lines 81-85: "...no application of hybrid
 control theory exists..."
 - Research Approach lines 115-116: "...enable progression to
 the next step..."
 - Metrics lines 29-31: "...makes this metric directly
 relevant..."
 - Risks lines 12-13: "...identification of remaining
 barriers to deployment"
 **How to fix**: Identify the most important new claim in
 each sentence and move it to the end. Often this means
 converting from "X does Y to achieve Z" to "X achieves Z by
 doing Y."
 ---
 ### Pattern 2: Passive Voice Obscuring Agency
 **Principle** (Gopen): Passive voice obscures who does what
 and reduces directness. In proposal writing, active voice
 demonstrates confidence and control. Use passive only when
 the agent is truly unimportant or unknown.
 **Example 1** (Research Approach, line 118): ``` Current:
 "We will employ state-of-the-art reactive synthesis
 tools..." ```
 - **Issue**: "Employ" is weak; you're not hiring the tools,
 you're using them
 - **Better**: "We will use Strix, a state-of-the-art
 reactive synthesis tool..."
 - **Best**: "Strix will translate our temporal logic
 specifications into deterministic automata..." (Shows what
 the tool *does*, not just that you'll use it)
 **Example 2** (Research Approach, line 207): ``` Current:
 "Control barrier functions will be employed when..." ```
 - **Issue**: Passive—who employs them? And "employed" sounds
 formal/stuffy
 - **Fixed**: "We will use control barrier functions to
 verify..." or better "Control barrier functions verify..."
 **Example 3** (Metrics, line 67): ``` Current: "This
 milestone delivers an internal technical report..." ```
 - **Issue**: Milestones don't deliver, people do
 - **Fixed**: "We will deliver an internal technical report
 documenting..."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Research Approach lines 161, 175, 206, 220: "will be
 employed", "will be developed", "will be used"
 - Metrics lines 69, 73, 79, 84: "...delivers a [document]"
 - Risks lines 57, 109, 163: various passives
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify the real agent (usually "we")
 2. Make agent the subject: "We will X" or "X will Y"
 3. Choose strong active verbs: use/apply/develop/verify (not
 employ/utilize)
 ---
 ### Pattern 3: Point-Issue Structure Weakness
 **Principle** (Gopen): Paragraphs should begin by
 establishing (1) the point/claim being made and (2) why it
 matters (the issue). Discussion then supports that point.
 Readers need context before details.
 **Example 1** (State of the Art, lines 88-107): ``` Current
 paragraph begins: "The persistent role of human error in
 nuclear safety incidents, despite decades of
 improvements..." ```
 - **Analysis**: This paragraph immediately dives into the
 "persistent role" without first establishing why we're
 discussing human factors at all. Reader thinks: "Wait,
 weren't we just talking about procedures?"
 - **Fixed**: Add issue statement first: "Human factors
 provide the most compelling motivation for formal automated
 control. Despite decades of improvements in training and
 procedures, human error persists in 70-80% of nuclear
 incidents—suggesting that operator-based control faces
 fundamental, not remediable, limitations."
 **Example 2** (Risks, first paragraph): ``` Current: "This
 research relies on several critical assumptions that, if
 invalidated, would require scope adjustment..." ```
 - **Analysis**: Good—this establishes both point (critical
 assumptions exist) and issue (invalidity requires
 adjustment) immediately. The paragraph then delivers on this
 promise. This is a good model!
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 166-169): ```
 Current: "While discrete system components will be
 synthesized with correctness guarantees, they represent only
 half of the complete system." ```
 - **Analysis**: Good issue statement (discrete alone
 insufficient), but could be sharper about the point. What
 will this section show?
 - **Fixed**: "While discrete system components will be
 synthesized with correctness guarantees, they represent only
 half of the complete system. This section describes how we
 will develop continuous control modes, verify their
 correctness, and address the unique verification challenges
 at the discrete-continuous interface."
 **Similar instances**:
 - State of the Art lines 13-34: long paragraph with delayed
 point
 - Goals lines 103-119: impact paragraph could be tighter
 - Approach lines 178-208: three-mode classification needs
 clearer framing
 **How to fix**:
 1. First sentence should state the paragraph's point
 2. Second sentence (or same sentence) should state why this
 matters
 3. Remaining sentences provide supporting detail
 ---
 ### Pattern 4: Topic Position & Continuity
 **Principle** (Gopen): The topic position (beginning of
 sentence) should contain old/familiar information that links
 to what came before. This creates flow and coherence. Abrupt
 topic shifts disorient readers.
 **Example 1** (Goals, lines 18-23): ``` Sentence 1: "...this
 reliance on human operators prevents the introduction of
 autonomous control capabilities..."
 Sentence 2: "Emerging technologies like small modular
 reactors face significantly higher per-megawatt staffing
 costs..." ```
 - **Issue**: Topic shifts abruptly from "reliance on
 operators" to "emerging technologies". Connection exists
 (both about staffing challenges) but isn't explicit
 - **Fixed**: "...prevents autonomous control capabilities.
 This limitation creates particular challenges for emerging
 technologies like small modular reactors, which face
 significantly higher per-megawatt staffing costs..."
 **Example 2** (State of the Art, lines 234-243): ```
 Sentence about what HARDENS addressed: "...discrete digital
 control logic..."
 Next sentence: "However, the project did not address
 continuous dynamics..." ```
 - **Analysis**: Good use of "however, the project" in topic
 position—maintains focus on HARDENS while pivoting to
 limitation. This is a good model!
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 56-58): ``` Sentence
 1: "...we may be able to translate them into logical
 formulae..."
 Sentence 2: "Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) provides four
 fundamental operators..." ```
 - **Issue**: Abrupt topic shift from "translating
 procedures" to "LTL provides". Missing: why LTL? Why now?
 - **Fixed**: "...translate them into logical formulae. To
 formalize these procedures, we will use Linear Temporal
 Logic (LTL), which provides four fundamental operators..."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Goals lines 23-27: "emerging technologies" → "what is
 needed"
 - State of the Art lines 72-74: control modes → division
 between automated/human
 - Approach lines 183-185: stabilizing mode example →
 transitory mode definition
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify the topic of the previous sentence
 2. Begin next sentence with something related to that topic
 3. Use transitional phrases when shifting topics: "This
 [previous thing] leads to [new thing]"
 ---
 ### Pattern 5: Long Complex Sentences
 **Principle**: Sentences with multiple subordinate clauses
 (especially over 35-40 words) tax reader working memory.
 Breaking into multiple sentences often improves clarity
 without losing sophistication.
 **Example 1** (State of the Art, lines 48-51): ``` Current
 (51 words): "Procedures undergo technical evaluation,
 simulator validation testing, and biennial review as part of
 operator requalification under 10 CFR 55.59, but despite
 these rigorous development processes, procedures
 fundamentally lack formal verification of key safety
 properties." ```
 - **Issue**: Long sentence with list, subordinate clause,
 and contrast—hard to parse
 - **Fixed (2 sentences)**: "Procedures undergo technical
 evaluation, simulator validation testing, and biennial
 review as part of operator requalification under 10 CFR
 55.59. Despite these rigorous development processes,
 procedures fundamentally lack formal verification of key
 safety properties."
 **Example 2** (Risks, lines 72-78): ``` Current (57 words):
 "Temporal logic operates on boolean predicates, while
 continuous control requires reasoning about differential
 equations and reachable sets, and guard conditions that
 require complex nonlinear predicates may resist boolean
 abstraction, making synthesis intractable." ```
 - **Issue**: Run-on with multiple clauses strung together
 with commas
 - **Fixed (3 sentences)**: "Temporal logic operates on
 boolean predicates, while continuous control requires
 reasoning about differential equations and reachable sets.
 Guard conditions requiring complex nonlinear predicates may
 resist boolean abstraction. This mismatch could make
 synthesis intractable."
 **Similar instances**:
 - State of the Art lines 44-51: procedure development
 description
 - Research Approach lines 40-45: hybrid system description
 - Risks lines 17-24: computational tractability discussion
 - Broader Impacts lines 13-23: economic analysis
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify natural breakpoints (usually where you have
 "and" or "but")
 2. Create new sentences at these breaks
 3. Ensure each new sentence has clear topic position
 4. May need to repeat/reference previous sentence's subject
 for clarity
 ---
 ## Section-Level Issues
 ### Goals and Outcomes Section **Strengths**: Excellent
 structure with clear goal → problem → approach → outcomes →
 impact progression. The four-paragraph opening is very
 strong.
 **Issues**:
 - Lines 29-53 (Approach paragraph): This is dense and tries
 to cover too much. Consider breaking into two paragraphs:
 one on the approach concept, one on the hypothesis and
 rationale.
 - Outcomes enumeration: Very clear, but could strengthen the
 transition from strategy to outcome in each item. Currently
 reads as "we'll do X. [new sentence] This enables Y."
 Consider: "We'll do X, enabling Y."
 ### State of the Art Section **Strengths**: Comprehensive,
 well-researched, excellent use of the HARDENS case study as
 both positive example and gap identifier.
 **Issues**:
 - **Length**: At 358 lines, this risks losing readers. Most
 concerning: readers may forget your framing by the time they
 reach your contribution.
 - **Organization**: Four major subsections (procedures,
 human factors, HARDENS, research imperative) would benefit
 from a roadmap sentence at the beginning: "To understand the
 need for hybrid control synthesis, we first examine..."
 - **Balance**: HARDENS subsection is 89 lines—nearly 25% of
 SOTA. While impressive, consider whether this should be a
 separate section or whether some detail could move to an
 appendix.
 - **Transition to Approach**: The "Research Imperative"
 subsection is excellent but feels like it belongs at the
 start of Research Approach rather than end of SOTA.
 ### Research Approach Section **Strengths**: Clear
 three-thrust structure, good use of equations and examples,
 strong technical detail.
 **Issues**:
 - **Subsection transitions**: The transitions between the
 three main subsections (Procedures→Temporal,
 Temporal→Discrete, Discrete→Continuous) could be smoother.
 Each starts somewhat abruptly.
 - **SmAHTR introduction**: The SmAHTR demonstration case is
 introduced suddenly at line 253. Consider introducing it
 earlier (perhaps in Goals section or at start of Approach)
 so readers know it's coming.
 - **Three-mode classification**: Lines 178-208 present the
 stabilizing/transitory/expulsory framework, which is
 innovative. This deserves more prominence—consider
 highlighting it as a key contribution.
 ### Metrics of Success Section **Strengths**: TRL framework
 is well-justified, progression through levels is clear.
 **Issues**:
 - **Defensive tone**: Lines 11-30 spend considerable space
 justifying why TRL is appropriate. This is good but could be
 more concise. Consider: one paragraph on why TRLs (lines
 10-19) rather than two.
 - **Grading criteria**: The TRL definitions (3, 4, 5) are
 excellent. Very concrete and measurable.
 ### Risks and Contingencies Section **Strengths**:
 Comprehensive, each risk has indicators and contingencies,
 well-organized.
 **Issues**:
 - **Subsection balance**: Four subsections range from 41
 lines (computational) to 65 lines (discrete-continuous).
 Ensure space reflects actual risk level.
 - **Mitigation vs. contingency**: Some subsections blur
 "mitigation" (preventing problems) and "contingency"
 (response if they occur). Consider clarifying this
 structure.
 ### Broader Impacts Section **Strengths**: Clear economic
 motivation, good connection to SMRs and datacenter
 application.
 **Issues**:
 - **Brevity**: At 75 lines, this is the shortest technical
 section. Given that economic viability is a key motivation,
 consider expanding.
 - **Missed opportunities**: Could briefly mention
 workforce/educational impacts (training future engineers in
 formal methods), equity (providing reliable clean energy to
 underserved areas), broader applicability beyond nuclear.
 ### Budget Section **Brief review**: Budget is
 comprehensive, well-justified, appropriate. Minor note:
 Consider whether the high-performance workstation (Year 1)
 might need upgrades in Year 2-3 as synthesis scales up.
 ### Schedule Section **Brief review**: Schedule is ambitious
 but realistic. Six trimesters for dissertation research is
 reasonable. Publication strategy is smart (nuclear community
 first, then broader control theory community). Minor note:
 Line 73 has a space issue ("t ranslation").
 ---
 ## Big Picture Observations
 ### Narrative and Argument Structure
 **Strengths**:
 - Clear problem-solution arc: operators make errors →
 procedures lack formal guarantees → hybrid control synthesis
 provides guarantees
 - Good use of motivating examples (TMI, human error
 statistics, HARDENS)
 - Technical progression is logical: discrete synthesis →
 continuous verification → integrated system
 **Opportunities**:
 1. **Strengthen "so what" transitions**: The proposal
 sometimes presents information without explicitly stating
 significance. Add more "This matters because..." statements.
 2. **Emphasize novelty earlier**: The three-mode
 classification and discrete-continuous interface
 verification are novel contributions. Signal this earlier
 and more explicitly.
 3. **Create more callbacks**: When describing Research
 Approach, refer back to specific limitations identified in
 State of the Art. Currently these connections are implicit.
 ### Rhetorical Effectiveness
 **Credibility established through**:
 - Comprehensive literature review
 - Specific technical detail
 - Access to industry hardware (Emerson partnership)
 - Prior conference recognition (best student paper)
 **Value proposition**:
 - Clear economic impact (O&M cost reduction)
 - Safety improvement (mathematical guarantees vs. human
 operators)
 - Broader applicability (methodology generalizes)
 **Could strengthen**:
 - More explicit statements of what's novel vs. what's
 established practice
 - Stronger emphasis on the unique combination of discrete
 synthesis + continuous verification (others do one or the
 other, not both)
 ### Content Gaps and Consistency
 **Terminology**:
 - Generally consistent
 - Good introduction of technical terms (hybrid automata,
 temporal logic, reachability analysis)
 - Minor: "correct by construction" vs. "provably
 correct"—used interchangeably, which is fine, but could note
 they're synonymous
 **Scope consistency**:
 - Excellent—stays focused on startup procedures for SmAHTR
 - Appropriately acknowledges limitations (TRL 5, not
 deployment-ready)
 - Risk section addresses what happens if scope must narrow
 **Potential gaps**:
 1. **Cybersecurity**: Not mentioned. For autonomous nuclear
 control, shouldn't there be at least a paragraph on security
 verification?
 2. **Regulatory path**: You mention "regulatory
 requirements" but don't detail what NRC approval process
 would look like. Even a paragraph would strengthen
 credibility.
 3. **Comparison with alternatives**: What about machine
 learning approaches to autonomous control? Worth a paragraph
 explaining why formal methods are superior for
 safety-critical systems.
 ---
 ## Gopen Framework Quick Reference
 **Stress Position**: End of sentence should contain most
 important new information. Readers expect climax there.
 **Topic Position**: Beginning of sentence should contain
 familiar information that links to previous sentence.
 Creates flow.
 **Point-Issue Structure**: Paragraphs should open by stating
 (1) the point/claim and (2) why it matters, before providing
 supporting detail.
 **Topic String**: The chain of topics across sentences in a
 paragraph. Strong topic strings create coherence; broken
 ones confuse readers.
 **Old→New Information Flow**: Information should flow from
 familiar (old) to unfamiliar (new) within sentences and
 paragraphs.
 ---
 ## Next Steps
 1. **Start with Priority Issues 1-3**: These have the
 highest impact
 2. **Apply Patterns**: Use the pattern examples to fix
 similar instances throughout
 3. **Consult Detailed Document**: For comprehensive
 checkbox-by-checkbox revisions
 4. **Section-by-section revision**: Work through one section
 at a time, applying patterns
 5. **Final pass for consistency**: Ensure changes maintain
 consistent terminology and tone
 This proposal has strong technical content and a solid
 structure. The revisions suggested here will strengthen
 clarity, emphasize key contributions, and make the argument
 even more compelling for reviewers. Good luck with your
 revisions!
--- a/Writing/ERLM/Discrete
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/Discrete
@ -1 +0,0 @@
 Created task 43.
--- a/Writing/ERLM/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Detailed.md
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Detailed.md
--- a/Writing/ERLM/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Summary.md
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Summary.md
@ -0,0 +1,627 @@
 # ERLM Proposal Writing Review - Executive Summary
 **Date**: December 2, 2025 **Reviewer**: Claude Code
 **Framework**: Gopen's Sense of Structure
 ---
 ## Overview
 This proposal demonstrates strong technical content, clear
 methodology, and comprehensive coverage of all required
 elements. The research approach is well-conceived, and the
 progression from problem statement through solution is
 logical. The writing is generally clear and professional.
 **Key Strengths:**
 - Excellent technical depth and specificity
 - Strong motivation established through human factors
 statistics
 - Clear three-thrust research structure
 - Comprehensive risk analysis with concrete contingencies
 - Good use of specific examples (TMI accident, HARDENS
 project)
 **Priority Areas for Revision:**
 - Sentence-level: Strengthen stress positions to emphasize
 key claims
 - Paragraph-level: Sharpen point-issue structure in some
 sections
 - Section-level: Tighten organization in State of the Art
 section
 - Big picture: Strengthen "so what" connections throughout
 ---
 ## Priority Issues (Top 10)
 ### 1. **SOTA Section Length and Organization**
 [SECTION-LEVEL] **Location**: State of the Art section (358
 lines) **Issue**: The SOTA section is the longest in the
 proposal and covers multiple distinct topics (current
 procedures, human factors, HARDENS). While comprehensive, it
 risks overwhelming readers and obscuring your key
 contributions. **Impact**: HIGH - Reviewers may lose track
 of your argument in the density **Recommendation**:
 Consider restructuring with clearer signposting. Each
 subsection should explicitly connect back to what gap
 you're filling. The current "\textbf{LIMITATION:}" callouts
 are excellent—ensure every major subsection has one.
 ### 2. **Weak Stress Positions Throughout** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: All sections, especially Goals and State of
 the Art **Issue**: Many sentences place old/known
 information in stress position (sentence-final), missing
 opportunities to emphasize new claims **Impact**:
 MEDIUM-HIGH - Reduces rhetorical impact of key claims **See
 Pattern**: "Stress Position Weakness" below for examples and
 fixes
 ### 3. **Missing "So What" Connections** [BIG PICTURE]
 **Location**: Transitions between major sections **Issue**:
 The proposal moves from problem → approach → metrics without
 always explicitly stating "this matters because..." at
 transition points **Impact**: MEDIUM-HIGH - Reviewers may
 not fully grasp significance **Recommendation**: Add
 explicit "if successful, this enables..." statements at the
 end of Goals section and beginning of Metrics section
 ### 4. **Passive Voice Obscuring Agency** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Research Approach, especially subsection
 introductions **Issue**: Passive constructions like "will be
 employed" and "will be used" hide who does what and reduce
 directness **Impact**: MEDIUM - Reduces clarity and makes
 writing feel less confident **See Pattern**: "Passive Voice"
 below
 ### 5. **Point-Issue Structure in Paragraphs**
 [PARAGRAPH-LEVEL] **Location**: State of the Art, Risk
 sections **Issue**: Some paragraphs present information
 without first establishing why readers should care (the
 "issue") **Impact**: MEDIUM - Readers may wonder "why are
 you telling me this?" **See Pattern**: "Point-Issue
 Structure" below
 ### 6. **Topic String Breaks** [PARAGRAPH-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Research Approach, subsection transitions
 **Issue**: Topic position doesn't always establish clear
 continuity from previous sentence, forcing readers to
 reconstruct connections **Impact**: MEDIUM - Increases
 cognitive load **See Pattern**: "Topic Position &
 Continuity" below
 ### 7. **Nominalization Hiding Action** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: Throughout, especially Research Approach
 **Issue**: Action buried in nouns (e.g., "implementation"
 instead of "implement", "verification" instead of "verify")
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Makes writing feel static rather than
 dynamic **Recommendation**: Convert nominalizations to
 active verbs where possible
 ### 8. **Long Complex Sentences** [SENTENCE-LEVEL]
 **Location**: State of the Art (lines 45-51), Risks (lines
 72-79) **Issue**: Some sentences exceed 40-50 words with
 multiple subordinate clauses, challenging comprehension
 **Impact**: MEDIUM - Reviewers may have to re-read
 **Recommendation**: Break into 2-3 shorter sentences with
 clear logical flow
 ### 9. **Subsection Balance in Risks Section**
 [SECTION-LEVEL] **Location**: Risks and Contingencies
 section **Issue**: Four subsections of vastly different
 lengths (computational tractability gets more space than
 discrete-continuous interface, despite latter being more
 fundamental) **Impact**: LOW-MEDIUM - May suggest misaligned
 priorities **Recommendation**: Consider whether space
 allocation reflects actual risk magnitude
 ### 10. **Broader Impacts Underutilized** [BIG PICTURE]
 **Location**: Broader Impacts section (75 lines vs 358 for
 SOTA) **Issue**: This section is relatively brief given that
 economic impact is a major motivation for SMRs **Impact**:
 LOW-MEDIUM - Missing opportunity to strengthen value
 proposition **Recommendation**: Consider expanding economic
 analysis or adding brief discussion of workforce/educational
 impacts
 ---
 ## Key Patterns Identified
 ### Pattern 1: Stress Position Weakness
 **Principle** (Gopen): The stress position (end of sentence)
 should contain the most important new information. Readers
 expect climax at sentence-end and are disappointed when they
 find old information or weak phrases there.
 **Example 1** (Goals and Outcomes, lines 13-17): ```
 Current: "Currently, nuclear plant operations rely on
 extensively trained human operators who follow detailed
 written procedures and strict regulatory requirements to
 manage reactor control." ```
 - **Issue**: Sentence ends with "manage reactor control"—a
 restatement of the opening. The key claim is buried
 mid-sentence: "extensively trained...detailed
 procedures...strict requirements"
 - **Fixed**: "Currently, nuclear plant operations require
 extensively trained human operators following detailed
 written procedures under strict regulatory requirements."
 **Example 2** (State of the Art, lines 53-54): ``` Current:
 "Procedures lack formal verification of correctness and
 completeness." ```
 - **Issue**: Ends weakly with "completeness" which is minor
 compared to the bigger issue
 - **Fixed**: "Procedures lack formal verification, leaving
 correctness and completeness unproven."
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 41-42): ``` Current:
 "The following sections discuss how these thrusts will be
 accomplished." ```
 - **Issue**: Pure metadiscourse in stress position, provides
 no new information
 - **Fixed**: Delete this sentence—the enumeration provides
 sufficient transition, or combine with previous sentence:
 "...through three main thrusts, each detailed below."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Goals lines 29-32: "...we will combine formal methods..."
 - State of the Art lines 81-85: "...no application of hybrid
 control theory exists..."
 - Research Approach lines 115-116: "...enable progression to
 the next step..."
 - Metrics lines 29-31: "...makes this metric directly
 relevant..."
 - Risks lines 12-13: "...identification of remaining
 barriers to deployment"
 **How to fix**: Identify the most important new claim in
 each sentence and move it to the end. Often this means
 converting from "X does Y to achieve Z" to "X achieves Z by
 doing Y."
 ---
 ### Pattern 2: Passive Voice Obscuring Agency
 **Principle** (Gopen): Passive voice obscures who does what
 and reduces directness. In proposal writing, active voice
 demonstrates confidence and control. Use passive only when
 the agent is truly unimportant or unknown.
 **Example 1** (Research Approach, line 118): ``` Current:
 "We will employ state-of-the-art reactive synthesis
 tools..." ```
 - **Issue**: "Employ" is weak; you're not hiring the tools,
 you're using them
 - **Better**: "We will use Strix, a state-of-the-art
 reactive synthesis tool..."
 - **Best**: "Strix will translate our temporal logic
 specifications into deterministic automata..." (Shows what
 the tool *does*, not just that you'll use it)
 **Example 2** (Research Approach, line 207): ``` Current:
 "Control barrier functions will be employed when..." ```
 - **Issue**: Passive—who employs them? And "employed" sounds
 formal/stuffy
 - **Fixed**: "We will use control barrier functions to
 verify..." or better "Control barrier functions verify..."
 **Example 3** (Metrics, line 67): ``` Current: "This
 milestone delivers an internal technical report..." ```
 - **Issue**: Milestones don't deliver, people do
 - **Fixed**: "We will deliver an internal technical report
 documenting..."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Research Approach lines 161, 175, 206, 220: "will be
 employed", "will be developed", "will be used"
 - Metrics lines 69, 73, 79, 84: "...delivers a [document]"
 - Risks lines 57, 109, 163: various passives
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify the real agent (usually "we")
 2. Make agent the subject: "We will X" or "X will Y"
 3. Choose strong active verbs: use/apply/develop/verify (not
 employ/utilize)
 ---
 ### Pattern 3: Point-Issue Structure Weakness
 **Principle** (Gopen): Paragraphs should begin by
 establishing (1) the point/claim being made and (2) why it
 matters (the issue). Discussion then supports that point.
 Readers need context before details.
 **Example 1** (State of the Art, lines 88-107): ``` Current
 paragraph begins: "The persistent role of human error in
 nuclear safety incidents, despite decades of
 improvements..." ```
 - **Analysis**: This paragraph immediately dives into the
 "persistent role" without first establishing why we're
 discussing human factors at all. Reader thinks: "Wait,
 weren't we just talking about procedures?"
 - **Fixed**: Add issue statement first: "Human factors
 provide the most compelling motivation for formal automated
 control. Despite decades of improvements in training and
 procedures, human error persists in 70-80% of nuclear
 incidents—suggesting that operator-based control faces
 fundamental, not remediable, limitations."
 **Example 2** (Risks, first paragraph): ``` Current: "This
 research relies on several critical assumptions that, if
 invalidated, would require scope adjustment..." ```
 - **Analysis**: Good—this establishes both point (critical
 assumptions exist) and issue (invalidity requires
 adjustment) immediately. The paragraph then delivers on this
 promise. This is a good model!
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 166-169): ```
 Current: "While discrete system components will be
 synthesized with correctness guarantees, they represent only
 half of the complete system." ```
 - **Analysis**: Good issue statement (discrete alone
 insufficient), but could be sharper about the point. What
 will this section show?
 - **Fixed**: "While discrete system components will be
 synthesized with correctness guarantees, they represent only
 half of the complete system. This section describes how we
 will develop continuous control modes, verify their
 correctness, and address the unique verification challenges
 at the discrete-continuous interface."
 **Similar instances**:
 - State of the Art lines 13-34: long paragraph with delayed
 point
 - Goals lines 103-119: impact paragraph could be tighter
 - Approach lines 178-208: three-mode classification needs
 clearer framing
 **How to fix**:
 1. First sentence should state the paragraph's point
 2. Second sentence (or same sentence) should state why this
 matters
 3. Remaining sentences provide supporting detail
 ---
 ### Pattern 4: Topic Position & Continuity
 **Principle** (Gopen): The topic position (beginning of
 sentence) should contain old/familiar information that links
 to what came before. This creates flow and coherence. Abrupt
 topic shifts disorient readers.
 **Example 1** (Goals, lines 18-23): ``` Sentence 1: "...this
 reliance on human operators prevents the introduction of
 autonomous control capabilities..."
 Sentence 2: "Emerging technologies like small modular
 reactors face significantly higher per-megawatt staffing
 costs..." ```
 - **Issue**: Topic shifts abruptly from "reliance on
 operators" to "emerging technologies". Connection exists
 (both about staffing challenges) but isn't explicit
 - **Fixed**: "...prevents autonomous control capabilities.
 This limitation creates particular challenges for emerging
 technologies like small modular reactors, which face
 significantly higher per-megawatt staffing costs..."
 **Example 2** (State of the Art, lines 234-243): ```
 Sentence about what HARDENS addressed: "...discrete digital
 control logic..."
 Next sentence: "However, the project did not address
 continuous dynamics..." ```
 - **Analysis**: Good use of "however, the project" in topic
 position—maintains focus on HARDENS while pivoting to
 limitation. This is a good model!
 **Example 3** (Research Approach, lines 56-58): ``` Sentence
 1: "...we may be able to translate them into logical
 formulae..."
 Sentence 2: "Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) provides four
 fundamental operators..." ```
 - **Issue**: Abrupt topic shift from "translating
 procedures" to "LTL provides". Missing: why LTL? Why now?
 - **Fixed**: "...translate them into logical formulae. To
 formalize these procedures, we will use Linear Temporal
 Logic (LTL), which provides four fundamental operators..."
 **Similar instances**:
 - Goals lines 23-27: "emerging technologies" → "what is
 needed"
 - State of the Art lines 72-74: control modes → division
 between automated/human
 - Approach lines 183-185: stabilizing mode example →
 transitory mode definition
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify the topic of the previous sentence
 2. Begin next sentence with something related to that topic
 3. Use transitional phrases when shifting topics: "This
 [previous thing] leads to [new thing]"
 ---
 ### Pattern 5: Long Complex Sentences
 **Principle**: Sentences with multiple subordinate clauses
 (especially over 35-40 words) tax reader working memory.
 Breaking into multiple sentences often improves clarity
 without losing sophistication.
 **Example 1** (State of the Art, lines 48-51): ``` Current
 (51 words): "Procedures undergo technical evaluation,
 simulator validation testing, and biennial review as part of
 operator requalification under 10 CFR 55.59, but despite
 these rigorous development processes, procedures
 fundamentally lack formal verification of key safety
 properties." ```
 - **Issue**: Long sentence with list, subordinate clause,
 and contrast—hard to parse
 - **Fixed (2 sentences)**: "Procedures undergo technical
 evaluation, simulator validation testing, and biennial
 review as part of operator requalification under 10 CFR
 55.59. Despite these rigorous development processes,
 procedures fundamentally lack formal verification of key
 safety properties."
 **Example 2** (Risks, lines 72-78): ``` Current (57 words):
 "Temporal logic operates on boolean predicates, while
 continuous control requires reasoning about differential
 equations and reachable sets, and guard conditions that
 require complex nonlinear predicates may resist boolean
 abstraction, making synthesis intractable." ```
 - **Issue**: Run-on with multiple clauses strung together
 with commas
 - **Fixed (3 sentences)**: "Temporal logic operates on
 boolean predicates, while continuous control requires
 reasoning about differential equations and reachable sets.
 Guard conditions requiring complex nonlinear predicates may
 resist boolean abstraction. This mismatch could make
 synthesis intractable."
 **Similar instances**:
 - State of the Art lines 44-51: procedure development
 description
 - Research Approach lines 40-45: hybrid system description
 - Risks lines 17-24: computational tractability discussion
 - Broader Impacts lines 13-23: economic analysis
 **How to fix**:
 1. Identify natural breakpoints (usually where you have
 "and" or "but")
 2. Create new sentences at these breaks
 3. Ensure each new sentence has clear topic position
 4. May need to repeat/reference previous sentence's subject
 for clarity
 ---
 ## Section-Level Issues
 ### Goals and Outcomes Section **Strengths**: Excellent
 structure with clear goal → problem → approach → outcomes →
 impact progression. The four-paragraph opening is very
 strong.
 **Issues**:
 - Lines 29-53 (Approach paragraph): This is dense and tries
 to cover too much. Consider breaking into two paragraphs:
 one on the approach concept, one on the hypothesis and
 rationale.
 - Outcomes enumeration: Very clear, but could strengthen the
 transition from strategy to outcome in each item. Currently
 reads as "we'll do X. [new sentence] This enables Y."
 Consider: "We'll do X, enabling Y."
 ### State of the Art Section **Strengths**: Comprehensive,
 well-researched, excellent use of the HARDENS case study as
 both positive example and gap identifier.
 **Issues**:
 - **Length**: At 358 lines, this risks losing readers. Most
 concerning: readers may forget your framing by the time they
 reach your contribution.
 - **Organization**: Four major subsections (procedures,
 human factors, HARDENS, research imperative) would benefit
 from a roadmap sentence at the beginning: "To understand the
 need for hybrid control synthesis, we first examine..."
 - **Balance**: HARDENS subsection is 89 lines—nearly 25% of
 SOTA. While impressive, consider whether this should be a
 separate section or whether some detail could move to an
 appendix.
 - **Transition to Approach**: The "Research Imperative"
 subsection is excellent but feels like it belongs at the
 start of Research Approach rather than end of SOTA.
 ### Research Approach Section **Strengths**: Clear
 three-thrust structure, good use of equations and examples,
 strong technical detail.
 **Issues**:
 - **Subsection transitions**: The transitions between the
 three main subsections (Procedures→Temporal,
 Temporal→Discrete, Discrete→Continuous) could be smoother.
 Each starts somewhat abruptly.
 - **SmAHTR introduction**: The SmAHTR demonstration case is
 introduced suddenly at line 253. Consider introducing it
 earlier (perhaps in Goals section or at start of Approach)
 so readers know it's coming.
 - **Three-mode classification**: Lines 178-208 present the
 stabilizing/transitory/expulsory framework, which is
 innovative. This deserves more prominence—consider
 highlighting it as a key contribution.
 ### Metrics of Success Section **Strengths**: TRL framework
 is well-justified, progression through levels is clear.
 **Issues**:
 - **Defensive tone**: Lines 11-30 spend considerable space
 justifying why TRL is appropriate. This is good but could be
 more concise. Consider: one paragraph on why TRLs (lines
 10-19) rather than two.
 - **Grading criteria**: The TRL definitions (3, 4, 5) are
 excellent. Very concrete and measurable.
 ### Risks and Contingencies Section **Strengths**:
 Comprehensive, each risk has indicators and contingencies,
 well-organized.
 **Issues**:
 - **Subsection balance**: Four subsections range from 41
 lines (computational) to 65 lines (discrete-continuous).
 Ensure space reflects actual risk level.
 - **Mitigation vs. contingency**: Some subsections blur
 "mitigation" (preventing problems) and "contingency"
 (response if they occur). Consider clarifying this
 structure.
 ### Broader Impacts Section **Strengths**: Clear economic
 motivation, good connection to SMRs and datacenter
 application.
 **Issues**:
 - **Brevity**: At 75 lines, this is the shortest technical
 section. Given that economic viability is a key motivation,
 consider expanding.
 - **Missed opportunities**: Could briefly mention
 workforce/educational impacts (training future engineers in
 formal methods), equity (providing reliable clean energy to
 underserved areas), broader applicability beyond nuclear.
 ### Budget Section **Brief review**: Budget is
 comprehensive, well-justified, appropriate. Minor note:
 Consider whether the high-performance workstation (Year 1)
 might need upgrades in Year 2-3 as synthesis scales up.
 ### Schedule Section **Brief review**: Schedule is ambitious
 but realistic. Six trimesters for dissertation research is
 reasonable. Publication strategy is smart (nuclear community
 first, then broader control theory community). Minor note:
 Line 73 has a space issue ("t ranslation").
 ---
 ## Big Picture Observations
 ### Narrative and Argument Structure
 **Strengths**:
 - Clear problem-solution arc: operators make errors →
 procedures lack formal guarantees → hybrid control synthesis
 provides guarantees
 - Good use of motivating examples (TMI, human error
 statistics, HARDENS)
 - Technical progression is logical: discrete synthesis →
 continuous verification → integrated system
 **Opportunities**:
 1. **Strengthen "so what" transitions**: The proposal
 sometimes presents information without explicitly stating
 significance. Add more "This matters because..." statements.
 2. **Emphasize novelty earlier**: The three-mode
 classification and discrete-continuous interface
 verification are novel contributions. Signal this earlier
 and more explicitly.
 3. **Create more callbacks**: When describing Research
 Approach, refer back to specific limitations identified in
 State of the Art. Currently these connections are implicit.
 ### Rhetorical Effectiveness
 **Credibility established through**:
 - Comprehensive literature review
 - Specific technical detail
 - Access to industry hardware (Emerson partnership)
 - Prior conference recognition (best student paper)
 **Value proposition**:
 - Clear economic impact (O&M cost reduction)
 - Safety improvement (mathematical guarantees vs. human
 operators)
 - Broader applicability (methodology generalizes)
 **Could strengthen**:
 - More explicit statements of what's novel vs. what's
 established practice
 - Stronger emphasis on the unique combination of discrete
 synthesis + continuous verification (others do one or the
 other, not both)
 ### Content Gaps and Consistency
 **Terminology**:
 - Generally consistent
 - Good introduction of technical terms (hybrid automata,
 temporal logic, reachability analysis)
 - Minor: "correct by construction" vs. "provably
 correct"—used interchangeably, which is fine, but could note
 they're synonymous
 **Scope consistency**:
 - Excellent—stays focused on startup procedures for SmAHTR
 - Appropriately acknowledges limitations (TRL 5, not
 deployment-ready)
 - Risk section addresses what happens if scope must narrow
 **Potential gaps**:
 1. **Cybersecurity**: Not mentioned. For autonomous nuclear
 control, shouldn't there be at least a paragraph on security
 verification?
 2. **Regulatory path**: You mention "regulatory
 requirements" but don't detail what NRC approval process
 would look like. Even a paragraph would strengthen
 credibility.
 3. **Comparison with alternatives**: What about machine
 learning approaches to autonomous control? Worth a paragraph
 explaining why formal methods are superior for
 safety-critical systems.
 ---
 ## Gopen Framework Quick Reference
 **Stress Position**: End of sentence should contain most
 important new information. Readers expect climax there.
 **Topic Position**: Beginning of sentence should contain
 familiar information that links to previous sentence.
 Creates flow.
 **Point-Issue Structure**: Paragraphs should open by stating
 (1) the point/claim and (2) why it matters, before providing
 supporting detail.
 **Topic String**: The chain of topics across sentences in a
 paragraph. Strong topic strings create coherence; broken
 ones confuse readers.
 **Old→New Information Flow**: Information should flow from
 familiar (old) to unfamiliar (new) within sentences and
 paragraphs.
 ---
 ## Next Steps
 1. **Start with Priority Issues 1-3**: These have the
 highest impact
 2. **Apply Patterns**: Use the pattern examples to fix
 similar instances throughout
 3. **Consult Detailed Document**: For comprehensive
 checkbox-by-checkbox revisions
 4. **Section-by-section revision**: Work through one section
 at a time, applying patterns
 5. **Final pass for consistency**: Ensure changes maintain
 consistent terminology and tone
 This proposal has strong technical content and a solid
 structure. The revisions suggested here will strengthen
 clarity, emphasize key contributions, and make the argument
 even more compelling for reviewers. Good luck with your
 revisions!
--- a/Writing/ERLM/goals-and-outcomes/v7.tex
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/goals-and-outcomes/v7.tex
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.aux
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.aux
@ -15,73 +15,63 @@
 \citation{Wang2025}
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.2}Human Factors in Nuclear Accidents}{3}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \citation{Kemeny1979}
 \citation{NUREG-CR-6883}
 \citation{NUREG-2114}
 \citation{Rasmussen1983}
 \citation{Miller1956}
 \citation{Reason1990}
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.3}HARDENS and Formal Methods}{4}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \citation{Kiniry2022}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.3}HARDENS and Formal Methods}{5}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Research Approach}{5}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.3.1}Rigorous Digital Engineering Demonstrated Feasibility}{5}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.1}$(Procedures \wedge FRET) \rightarrow Temporal Specifications$}{6}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.3.2}Comprehensive Formal Methods Toolkit Provided Verification}{5}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.2}$(TemporalLogic \wedge ReactiveSynthesis) \rightarrow DiscreteAutomata$}{7}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\citation{Kiniry2022}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.3}$(DiscreteAutomata \wedge ControlTheory \wedge Reachability) \rightarrow ContinuousModes$}{8}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.3.3}Critical Limitation: Discrete Control Logic Only}{6}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Metrics for Success}{10}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.3.4}Experimental Validation Gap Limits Technology Readiness}{6}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{TRL 3 \textit  {Critical Function and Proof of Concept}}{11}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.4}Research Imperative: Formal Hybrid Control Synthesis}{7}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{TRL 4 \textit  {Laboratory Testing of Integrated Components}}{11}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Research Approach}{8}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{TRL 5 \textit  {Laboratory Testing in Relevant Environment}}{11}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.1}$(Procedures \wedge FRET) \rightarrow Temporal Specifications$}{8}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Risks and Contingencies}{12}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.2}$(TemporalLogic \wedge ReactiveSynthesis) \rightarrow DiscreteAutomata$}{9}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.1}Computational Tractability of Synthesis}{12}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.3}$(DiscreteAutomata \wedge ControlTheory \wedge Reachability) \rightarrow ContinuousModes$}{10}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.2}Discrete-Continuous Interface Formalization}{13}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Metrics for Success}{12}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.3}Procedure Formalization Completeness}{14}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{TRL 3 \textit  {Critical Function and Proof of Concept}}{13}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.4}Hardware-in-the-Loop Integration Complexity}{15}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{TRL 4 \textit  {Laboratory Testing of Integrated Components}}{13}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{TRL 5 \textit  {Laboratory Testing in Relevant Environment}}{13}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Risks and Contingencies}{14}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.1}Computational Tractability of Synthesis}{14}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.2}Discrete-Continuous Interface Formalization}{15}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.3}Procedure Formalization Completeness}{16}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.4}Hardware-in-the-Loop Integration Complexity}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \citation{eia_lcoe_2022}
 \citation{eesi_datacenter_2024}
 \citation{eia_lcoe_2022}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Broader Impacts}{18}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Broader Impacts}{16}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Budget and Budget Justification}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Budget and Budget Justification}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.1}Budget Summary}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.1}Budget Summary}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Budget Justification}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Budget Justification}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.1}Senior Personnel}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.1}Senior Personnel}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Faculty Advisor}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Faculty Advisor}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.2}Other Personnel}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.2}Other Personnel}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Graduate Research Assistant (Principal Investigator)}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Graduate Research Assistant (Principal Investigator)}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Proposed Budget by Year and Category}}{20}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.3}Fringe Benefits}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\newlabel{tab:budget}{{1}{20}{Budget Summary}{}{}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Faculty Fringe Benefits}{17}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.3}Fringe Benefits}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Proposed Budget by Year and Category}}{18}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Faculty Fringe Benefits}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\newlabel{tab:budget}{{1}{18}{Budget Summary}{}{}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Graduate Research Assistant Fringe Benefits}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Graduate Research Assistant Fringe Benefits}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.4}Equipment}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.4}Equipment}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.5}Travel}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.5}Travel}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Conference Travel (\$4,000 per year)}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Conference Travel (\$4,000 per year)}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Industry Collaboration Visits (\$1,500 per year)}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Industry Collaboration Visits (\$1,500 per year)}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.6}Participant Support Costs}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.6}Participant Support Costs}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.7}Other Direct Costs}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.7}Other Direct Costs}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Materials and Supplies}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Materials and Supplies}{19}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Publication Costs}{22}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Publication Costs}{20}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Computing and Cloud Services}{22}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Computing and Cloud Services}{20}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.8}H. Indirect Costs (Facilities \& Administrative)}{22}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.8}H. Indirect Costs (Facilities \& Administrative)}{20}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.9}Cost Sharing}{22}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.9}Cost Sharing}{20}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\newlabel{sec:cost-sharing}{{7.2.9}{22}{Cost Sharing}{}{}}
+\newlabel{sec:cost-sharing}{{7.2.9}{20}{Cost Sharing}{}{}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Emerson Process Management Partnership}{23}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Emerson Process Management Partnership}{20}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{University Infrastructure}{23}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{University Infrastructure}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Total In-Kind Contributions}{23}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {paragraph}{Total In-Kind Contributions}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.10}Budget Inflation and Escalation}{23}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {7.2.10}Budget Inflation and Escalation}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}Schedule, Milestones, and Deliverables}{23}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}Schedule, Milestones, and Deliverables}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {8.1}Milestones and Deliverables}{21}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \gtt@chartextrasize{0}{164.1287pt}
-\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Project schedule showing major research thrusts, milestones (orange row), and publications (green row). Red diamonds indicate completion points. Overlapping bars indicate parallel work where appropriate.}}{24}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Project schedule showing major research thrusts, milestones (orange row), and publications (green row). Red diamonds indicate completion points. Overlapping bars indicate parallel work where appropriate.}}{22}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\newlabel{fig:gantt}{{1}{24}{Schedule, Milestones, and Deliverables}{}{}}
+\newlabel{fig:gantt}{{1}{22}{Schedule, Milestones, and Deliverables}{}{}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {8.1}Milestones and Deliverables}{24}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}Supplemental Sections}{23}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}Supplemental Sections}{25}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {9.1}Biosketch}{23}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {9.1}Biosketch}{25}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {9.2}Data Management Plan}{26}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {9.2}Data Management Plan}{28}{}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {9.3}Facilities}{30}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {9.3}Facilities}{32}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \bibdata{references}
 \bibcite{10CFR55}{1}
 \bibcite{Kemeny1979}{2}
@ -90,13 +80,9 @@
 \bibcite{WNA2020}{5}
 \bibcite{IAEA-severe-accidents}{6}
 \bibcite{Wang2025}{7}
-\bibcite{NUREG-CR-6883}{8}
+\bibcite{Reason1990}{8}
-\bibcite{NUREG-2114}{9}
+\bibcite{Kiniry2022}{9}
-\bibcite{Rasmussen1983}{10}
+\bibcite{eia_lcoe_2022}{10}
-\bibcite{Miller1956}{11}
+\bibcite{eesi_datacenter_2024}{11}
-\bibcite{Reason1990}{12}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{References}{31}{}\protected@file@percent }
-\bibcite{Kiniry2022}{13}
+\gdef \@abspage@last{32}
 \bibcite{eia_lcoe_2022}{14}
 \bibcite{eesi_datacenter_2024}{15}
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{References}{33}{}\protected@file@percent }
 \gdef \@abspage@last{35}
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.bbl
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.bbl
@ -38,26 +38,6 @@ Y.~Wang et~al.
 \newblock {\em Journal of Nuclear Safety}, 2025.
 \newblock Analysis of 190 events at Chinese nuclear power plants.
 \bibitem{NUREG-CR-6883}
 D.~Gertman et~al.
 \newblock The spar-h human reliability analysis method.
 \newblock Technical Report NUREG/CR-6883, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2005.
 \bibitem{NUREG-2114}
 {U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission}.
 \newblock Cognitive basis for human reliability analysis.
 \newblock Technical Report NUREG-2114, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2016.
 \bibitem{Rasmussen1983}
 J.~Rasmussen.
 \newblock Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models.
 \newblock {\em IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics}, SMC-13(3):257--266, 1983.
 \bibitem{Miller1956}
 George~A. Miller.
 \newblock The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
 \newblock {\em Psychological Review}, 63(2):81--97, 1956.
 \bibitem{Reason1990}
 James Reason.
 \newblock {\em Human Error}.
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.blg
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.blg
@ -4,45 +4,45 @@ The top-level auxiliary file: main.aux
 The style file: unsrt.bst
 Database file #1: references.bib
 Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "princeton"
-You've used 15 entries,
+You've used 11 entries,
            1791 wiz_defined-function locations,
-            541 strings with 5998 characters,
+            515 strings with 5435 characters,
-and the built_in function-call counts, 2274 in all, are:
+and the built_in function-call counts, 1577 in all, are:
-= -- 209
+= -- 140
-> -- 85
+> -- 65
-< -- 5
+< -- 3
-+ -- 37
+ -- 28
- -- 22
+- -- 17
-* -- 82
+* -- 41
-:= -- 410
+:= -- 291
-add.period$ -- 51
+add.period$ -- 39
-call.type$ -- 15
+call.type$ -- 11
-change.case$ -- 16
+change.case$ -- 12
 chr.to.int$ -- 0
-cite$ -- 15
+cite$ -- 11
-duplicate$ -- 103
+duplicate$ -- 71
-empty$ -- 236
+empty$ -- 166
-format.name$ -- 22
+format.name$ -- 17
-if$ -- 499
+if$ -- 349
 int.to.chr$ -- 0
-int.to.str$ -- 15
+int.to.str$ -- 11
-missing$ -- 5
+missing$ -- 3
-newline$ -- 84
+newline$ -- 64
-num.names$ -- 15
+num.names$ -- 11
-pop$ -- 49
+pop$ -- 43
 preamble$ -- 1
 purify$ -- 0
 quote$ -- 0
-skip$ -- 29
+skip$ -- 20
 stack$ -- 0
-substring$ -- 44
+substring$ -- 0
-swap$ -- 13
+swap$ -- 9
-text.length$ -- 5
+text.length$ -- 3
 text.prefix$ -- 0
 top$ -- 0
 type$ -- 0
 warning$ -- 0
-while$ -- 19
+while$ -- 11
-width$ -- 17
+width$ -- 13
-write$ -- 171
+write$ -- 127
 (There was 1 warning)
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.fdb_latexmk
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.fdb_latexmk
@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 # Fdb version 4
-["bibtex main"] 1763393085.30288 "main.aux" "main.bbl" "main" 1763395986.20042 0
+["bibtex main"] 1764797497.91157 "main.aux" "main.bbl" "main" 1764797499.0949 0
  "./references.bib" 1760562704.16405 17887 8c959c4bb228b5a8c44fd08ed0751b05 ""
  "/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/bibtex/bst/base/unsrt.bst" 1292289607 18030 1376b4b231b50c66211e47e42eda2875 ""
-  "main.aux" 1763395986.0678 8467 bdad8e75b8e57263f8c50690e60576f4 "pdflatex"
+  "main.aux" 1764797498.95722 7493 145eb36fc16fd242541c91147603703c "pdflatex"
  (generated)
  "main.bbl"
  "main.blg"
  (rewritten before read)
-["pdflatex"] 1763395984.91173 "main.tex" "main.pdf" "main" 1763395986.20061 0
+["pdflatex"] 1764797497.93427 "main.tex" "main.pdf" "main" 1764797499.09513 0
  "/etc/texmf/web2c/texmf.cnf" 1722610814.59577 475 c0e671620eb5563b2130f56340a5fde8 ""
  "/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/base/8r.enc" 1165713224 4850 80dc9bab7f31fb78a000ccfed0e27cab ""
  "/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/map/fontname/texfonts.map" 1577235249 3524 cb3e574dea2d1052e39280babc910dc8 ""
@ -245,17 +245,17 @@
  "budget/v1.tex" 1762189605.00097 12864 1341c4cfdaf82dc649f2f47f3cc8ecd7 ""
  "dane_proposal_format.cls" 1760994752.93894 2596 f4b1a6fb5a74347c13e92ea1ba135818 ""
  "goals-and-outcomes/v6.tex" 1759931957.10694 6070 286ca847b1aac31431e0658cd2989ea2 ""
-  "main.aux" 1763395986.0678 8467 bdad8e75b8e57263f8c50690e60576f4 "pdflatex"
+  "main.aux" 1764797498.95722 7493 145eb36fc16fd242541c91147603703c "pdflatex"
-  "main.bbl" 1763393085.31848 3342 075c8b964a4c2fd091cb5b3a254f2d36 "bibtex main"
+  "main.bbl" 1764797497.92821 2497 c9440bf2d76ac901d421f7f89b129050 "bibtex main"
-  "main.tex" 1763391589.58839 768 2cc0add3c566c8cccc2b8f63e8a3a362 ""
+  "main.tex" 1764797489.4722 768 21c161623549be714dc49726837188d5 ""
  "metrics-of-success/v1.tex" 1760371276.72563 6867 9f08b3208bb158042e2fc9bbfeecae68 ""
  "research-approach/v3.tex" 1759939583.16696 17351 6ed3e4ff3c33dd86d80597dbdb0cf36f ""
  "risks-and-contingencies/v1.tex" 1761582682.04479 15209 c8ff47d0cfbf72d9c457463c5114f2a8 ""
  "schedule/v1.tex" 1763391736.55412 8440 1c6c59ab8379c2aee45e5ad9b447e61d ""
-  "state-of-the-art/v5.tex" 1760985490.34139 21194 7c0c8b627f15a0d811e7e10493b34cbf ""
+  "state-of-the-art/v6.tex" 1764797462.72603 13363 8453241fdf0e619612b39a75eaaed35f ""
  "supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf" 1763392988.33612 76839 d12cfa78304f51e96ce0e12460ece1e3 ""
  "supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf" 1763388592.02957 31602 224112b9f507ae1e989c0341a7eb3f42 ""
-  "supplemental-sections/v1.tex" 1763395929.04598 2302 f0b86db608b6a009fe0382e3e5901048 ""
+  "supplemental-sections/v1.tex" 1763415538.33815 2302 accf9c1dd3b7c2f35a3a051140113d63 ""
  (generated)
  "main.aux"
  "main.log"
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.fls
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.fls
@ -416,80 +416,73 @@ INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/ptmr7t.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmr8r.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/ptmb7t.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmb8r.tfm
-INPUT ./state-of-the-art/v5.tex
+INPUT ./state-of-the-art/v6.tex
-INPUT ./state-of-the-art/v5.tex
+INPUT ./state-of-the-art/v6.tex
-INPUT ./state-of-the-art/v5.tex
+INPUT ./state-of-the-art/v6.tex
-INPUT ./state-of-the-art/v5.tex
+INPUT ./state-of-the-art/v6.tex
-INPUT state-of-the-art/v5.tex
+INPUT state-of-the-art/v6.tex
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmri7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/ptmri7t.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmri8r.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7m.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7m.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7m.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7v.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7v.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7v.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmb7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmb7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmri7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmri7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msam10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msam10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msam10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msbm10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msbm10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msbm10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/symbol/psyr.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/cm/cmr10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/cm/cmsy10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/symbol/psyr.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmr8r.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/rsfs/rsfs10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/cm/cmr10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/cm/cmsy10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/rsfs/rsfs10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ts1ptm.fd
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ts1ptm.fd
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ts1ptm.fd
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmr8c.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/ptmr8c.vf
 INPUT ./research-approach/v3.tex
 INPUT ./research-approach/v3.tex
 INPUT ./research-approach/v3.tex
 INPUT ./research-approach/v3.tex
 INPUT research-approach/v3.tex
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7m.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7m.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7m.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7v.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7v.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/zptmcm7v.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmb7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmb7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmri7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmri7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msam10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msam10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msam10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msbm10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msbm10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/symbols/msbm10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/zptmcm7t.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/symbol/psyr.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/cm/cmr10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/zptmcm7m.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/psyro.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/cm/cmmi10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/zptmcm7y.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/cm/cmsy10.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/rsfs/rsfs10.tfm
 INPUT ./metrics-of-success/v1.tex
 INPUT ./metrics-of-success/v1.tex
 INPUT ./metrics-of-success/v1.tex
 INPUT ./metrics-of-success/v1.tex
 INPUT metrics-of-success/v1.tex
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmbi7t.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/ptmbi7t.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmbi8r.tfm
 INPUT ./risks-and-contingencies/v1.tex
 INPUT ./risks-and-contingencies/v1.tex
 INPUT ./risks-and-contingencies/v1.tex
 INPUT ./risks-and-contingencies/v1.tex
 INPUT risks-and-contingencies/v1.tex
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/ptmbi7t.vf
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmbi8r.tfm
 INPUT ./broader-impacts/v1.tex
 INPUT ./broader-impacts/v1.tex
 INPUT ./broader-impacts/v1.tex
 INPUT ./broader-impacts/v1.tex
 INPUT broader-impacts/v1.tex
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ts1ptm.fd
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ts1ptm.fd
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ts1ptm.fd
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/times/ptmr8c.tfm
 INPUT /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/times/ptmr8c.vf
 INPUT ./budget/v1.tex
 INPUT ./budget/v1.tex
 INPUT ./budget/v1.tex
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.log
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.log
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.25 (TeX Live 2023/Debian) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2024.9.10)  17 NOV 2025 11:13
+This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.25 (TeX Live 2023/Debian) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2024.9.10)  3 DEC 2025 16:31
 entering extended mode
 restricted \write18 enabled.
 file:line:error style messages enabled.
@ -881,38 +881,38 @@ LaTeX Font Info:    Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <8> not available
 (Font)              Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 12.
 [1
-{/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map}{/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/base/8r.enc}] (./goals-and-outcomes/v6.tex [1]) (./state-of-the-art/v5.tex
+{/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map}{/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/base/8r.enc}] (./goals-and-outcomes/v6.tex [1]) (./state-of-the-art/v6.tex
 LaTeX Warning: Citation `princeton' on page 2 undefined on input line 19.
-[2] [3]
+[2] [3] [4]) (./research-approach/v3.tex
 LaTeX Font Info:    Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <12> not available
-(Font)              Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 145.
+(Font)              Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 8.
 LaTeX Font Info:    Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <9> not available
-(Font)              Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 145.
+(Font)              Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 8.
 LaTeX Font Info:    Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <7> not available
-(Font)              Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 145.
+(Font)              Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 8.
- [4]
+ [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) (./metrics-of-success/v1.tex [10]) (./risks-and-contingencies/v1.tex [11] [12] [13] [14]) (./broader-impacts/v1.tex [15]
-LaTeX Font Info:    Trying to load font information for TS1+ptm on input line 177.
+LaTeX Font Info:    Trying to load font information for TS1+ptm on input line 14.
 (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ts1ptm.fd
 File: ts1ptm.fd 2001/06/04 font definitions for TS1/ptm.
-) [5] [6]) (./research-approach/v3.tex [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]) (./metrics-of-success/v1.tex [12] [13]) (./risks-and-contingencies/v1.tex [14] [15] [16]) (./broader-impacts/v1.tex [17] [18]) (./budget/v1.tex
+) [16]) (./budget/v1.tex
 LaTeX Font Info:    Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <6> not available
 (Font)              Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 22.
- [19] [20] [21] [22]
+ [17] [18] [19]
 Overfull \hbox (22.53047pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 264--271
 [] []\OT1/ptm/b/n/12 Uni-ver-sity In-fras-truc-ture[] \OT1/ptm/m/n/12 The Uni-ver-sity of Pitts-burgh pro-vides com-pre-hen-sive MAT-LAB/Simulink
 []
-) (./schedule/v1.tex
+[20]) (./schedule/v1.tex
 Missing character: There is no , in font nullfont!
 Overfull \hbox (35.80641pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 61--62
 [][] 
 []
-[23] [24]) (./supplemental-sections/v1.tex
+[21] [22]) (./supplemental-sections/v1.tex
-<supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, id=117, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
+<supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, id=110, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf  used on input line 4.
@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ File: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf  used on input line 4.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.29349pt x 794.96806pt.
-<supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, id=120, page=1, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
+<supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, id=113, page=1, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf , page1 used on input line 4.
@ -930,7 +930,7 @@ File: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf , page1 used on input line 4.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
- [25]
+ [23]
 File: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf , page1 used on input line 4.
@ -943,10 +943,10 @@ File: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf , page1 used on input line 4.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
- [26
+ [24
 <./supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf>]
-<supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, id=140, page=2, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
+<supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, id=134, page=2, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, page 2>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf , page2 used on input line 4.
@ -958,81 +958,81 @@ Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf , page2 used on in
 File: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf, page 2>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf , page2 used on input line 4.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 [25
 <./supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf>]
 <supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, id=138, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf  used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.29349pt x 794.96806pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf  used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.29349pt x 794.96806pt.
 <supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, id=141, page=1, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.29349pt x 794.96806pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 [26]
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 [27
- <./supplemental-sections/cv-1786798.pdf>]
+ <./supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>]
-<supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, id=144, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
+<supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, id=165, page=2, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
-<use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>
+<use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 2>
-Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf  used on input line 7.
+Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page2 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.29349pt x 794.96806pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf  used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.29349pt x 794.96806pt.
 <supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, id=147, page=1, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.29349pt x 794.96806pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 [28]
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
-<use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
+<use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 2>
-Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
+Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page2 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
-<use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 1>
+<use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 2>
-Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page1 used on input line 7.
+Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page2 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 [28
 <./supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>]
 <supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, id=169, page=3, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 3>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page3 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 3>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page3 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 3>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page3 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 [29
- <./supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>]
+ <./supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>]) [30] (./main.bbl
 <supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, id=171, page=2, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 2>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page2 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 2>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page2 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 2>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page2 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 [30
 <./supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>]
 <supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, id=176, page=3, 614.295pt x 794.97pt>
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 3>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page3 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 3>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page3 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 File: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf Graphic file (type pdf)
 <use supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf, page 3>
 Package pdftex.def Info: supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf , page3 used on input line 7.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 614.58406pt x 795.3441pt.
 [31
 <./supplemental-sections/High_Assurance_Autonomous_Control_Systems.pdf>]) [32] (./main.bbl
 Underfull \hbox (badness 10000) in paragraph at lines 25--28
 \OT1/cmtt/m/n/12 nuclear . org / information -[] library / safety -[] and -[] security / safety -[] of -[]
 []
-[33]) [34] (./main.aux)
+) [31] (./main.aux)
 ***********
 LaTeX2e <2023-11-01> patch level 1
 L3 programming layer <2024-01-22>
@ -1043,18 +1043,18 @@ LaTeX Warning: There were undefined references.
 ) 
 Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
- 26063 strings out of 476182
+ 26053 strings out of 476182
- 542901 string characters out of 5795595
+ 542818 string characters out of 5795595
 1947975 words of memory out of 5000000
- 47476 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000
+ 47472 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000
- 599106 words of font info for 124 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000
+ 596976 words of font info for 119 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000
 14 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
 110i,17n,107p,1062b,952s stack positions out of 10000i,1000n,20000p,200000b,200000s
 </usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmmi10.pfb></usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmr10.pfb></usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmsy10.pfb></usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmtt12.pfb></usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/symbol/usyr.pfb></usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/times/utmb8a.pfb></usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/times/utmbi8a.pfb></usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/times/utmr8a.pfb></usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/times/utmri8a.pfb>
-Output written on main.pdf (35 pages, 264050 bytes).
+Output written on main.pdf (32 pages, 255482 bytes).
 PDF statistics:
- 231 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607)
+ 222 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607)
- 137 compressed objects within 2 object streams
+ 131 compressed objects within 2 object streams
 0 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 500000)
 164 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 10000 (max. 10000000)
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.pdf
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.pdf
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.synctex.gz
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.synctex.gz
--- a/Writing/ERLM/main.tex
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/main.tex
@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 \maketitle
 \input{goals-and-outcomes/v6}
-\input{state-of-the-art/v5}
+\input{state-of-the-art/v6}
 \input{research-approach/v3}
 \input{metrics-of-success/v1}
 \input{risks-and-contingencies/v1}
--- a/Writing/ERLM/state-of-the-art/v6.tex
+++ b/Writing/ERLM/state-of-the-art/v6.tex
@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
 \section{State of the Art and Limits of Current Practice}
 The principal aim of this research is to create autonomous reactor control
 systems that are tractably safe. But, to understand what exactly is being
 automated, it is important to understand how nuclear reactors are operated
 today. First, the reactor operator themselves is discussed. Then, operating
 procedures that we aim to leverage later are examined. Next, limitations of
 human-based operation are investigated, while finally we discuss current formal
 methods based approaches to building reactor control systems.
 \subsection{Current Reactor Procedures and Operation}
 Current generation nuclear power plants employ 3,600+ active NRC-licensed
 reactor operators in the United States. These operators are divided into Reactor
 Operators (ROs) who manipulate reactor controls and Senior Reactor Operators
 (SROs) who direct plant operations and serve as shift
 supervisors~\cite{10CFR55}. Staffing typically requires 2+ ROs with at least one
 SRO for current generation units. To become a reactor operator, an individual
 might spend up to six years to pass required training~\cite{princeton}.
 The role of human operators is paradoxically both critical and
 problematic. Operators hold legal authority under 10 CFR Part 55 to make
 critical decisions including departing from normal regulations during
 emergencies. The Three Mile Island (TMI) accident demonstrated how
 ``combination of personnel error, design deficiencies, and component
 failures'' led to partial meltdown when operators ``misread confusing
 and contradictory readings and shut off the emergency water
 system''~\cite{Kemeny1979}. The President's Commission on TMI identified
 a fundamental ambiguity: placing ``responsibility and accountability for
 safe power plant operations...on the licensee in all circumstances''
 without formal verification that operators can fulfill this
 responsibility under all conditions~\cite{Kemeny1979}. This tension
 between operational flexibility and safety assurance remains unresolved
 in current practice.
 Nuclear plant procedures exist in a hierarchy: normal operating procedures for
 routine operations, abnormal operating procedures for off-normal conditions,
 Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) for design-basis accidents, Severe
 Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs) for beyond-design-basis events, and
 Extensive Damage Mitigation Guidelines (EDMGs) for catastrophic damage
 scenarios. These procedures must comply with 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii) and are
 developed using guidance from NUREG-0899~\cite{NUREG-0899}, but their
 development process relies fundamentally on expert judgment and simulator
 validation rather than formal verification. Procedures undergo technical
 evaluation, simulator validation testing, and biennial review as part of
 operator requalification under 10 CFR 55.59~\cite{10CFR55}. Despite these
 rigorous development processes, procedures fundamentally lack formal
 verification of key safety properties. There is no mathematical proof that
 procedures cover all possible plant states, that required actions can be
 completed within available timeframes under all scenarios, or that transitions
 between procedure sets maintain safety invariants. 
 \textbf{LIMITATION:} \textit{Procedures lack formal verification of correctness
 and completeness.} Current procedure development relies on expert judgment and
 simulator validation. No mathematical proof exists that procedures cover all
 possible plant states, that required actions can be completed within available
 timeframes, or that transitions between procedure sets maintain safety
 invariants. Paper-based procedures cannot ensure correct application, and even
 computer-based procedure systems lack the formal guarantees that automated
 reasoning could provide.
 Nuclear plants operate with multiple control modes: automatic control where the
 reactor control system maintains target parameters through continuous rod
 adjustment, manual control where operators directly manipulate control rods, and
 various intermediate modes. In typical pressurized water reactor operation, the
 reactor control system automatically maintains a floating average temperature,
 compensating for changes in power demand with reactivity feedback loops alone.
 Safety systems instead operate with implemented automation. Reactor
 Protection Systems trip automatically on safety signals with millisecond
 response times, and engineered safety features actuate automatically on accident
 signals without operator action required.
 The current division between automated and human-controlled functions
 reveals the fundamental challenge of hybrid control. Highly
 automated systems handle reactor protection like automatic trips on safety
 parameters, emergency core cooling actuation, containment isolation,
 and basic process control. Human operators, however, retain control of
 strategic decision-making such as power level changes, startup/shutdown
 sequences, mode transitions, and procedure implementation. %%%NEED MORE
 \textbf{LIMITATION:} \textit{Current practice treats continuous plant
 dynamics and discrete control logic separately.} No application of
 hybrid control theory exists that could provide mathematical guarantees
 across mode transitions, verify timing properties formally, or optimize
 the automation-human interaction trade-off with provable safety bounds.
 \subsection{Human Factors in Nuclear Accidents}
 The persistent role of human error in nuclear safety incidents, despite
 decades of improvements in training and procedures, provides perhaps the
 most compelling motivation for formal automated control with
 mathematical safety guarantees.
 Multiple independent analyses converge on a striking statistic: 70--80\%
 of all nuclear power plant events are attributed to human error versus
 approximately 20\% to equipment failures~\cite{DOE-HDBK-1028-2009,WNA2020}. More
 significantly, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that ``human
 error was the root cause of all severe accidents at nuclear power plants''---a
 categorical statement spanning Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima
 Daiichi~\cite{IAEA-severe-accidents}. A detailed analysis of 190 events at
 Chinese nuclear power plants from 2007--2020~\cite{Wang2025} found that 53\% of
 events involved active errors while 92\% were associated with latent errors
 (organizational and systemic weaknesses that create conditions for failure). The
 persistence of this 70--80\% human error contribution despite four decades of
 continuous improvements in operator training, control room design, procedures,
 and human factors engineering. This suggests fundamental cognitive limitations
 rather than remediable deficiencies.
 The Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident on March 28, 1979 remains the definitive
 case study in human factors failures in nuclear operations. The accident began
 at 4:00 AM with a routine feedwater pump trip, escalating when a
 pressure-operated relief valve (PORV) stuck open---draining reactor
 coolant---but control room instrumentation showed only whether the valve had
 been commanded to close, not whether it actually closed. When Emergency Core
 Cooling System pumps automatically activated as designed, operators made the
 fateful decision to shut them down based on their incorrect assessment of plant
 conditions. The result was a massive loss of coolant accident and the core
 quickly began to overheat. During the emergency, operators faced more than 100
 simultaneous alarms, overwhelming their cognitive capacity~\cite{Kemeny1979}.
 The core suffered partial meltdown with 44\% of the fuel melting before the
 situation was stabilized. Quantitative risk analysis revealed the magnitude of
 failure in existing safety assessment methods: the actual core damage
 probability was approximately 5\% per year while Probabilistic Risk Assessment
 had predicted 0.01\% per year---a 500-fold underestimation. This
 dramatic failure demonstrated that human reliability could not be adequately
 assessed through expert judgment and historical data alone.
 \textbf{LIMITATION:} \textit{Human factors impose fundamental reliability
 limits that cannot be overcome through training alone.} Response time
 limitations constrain human effectiveness---reactor protection systems
 must respond in milliseconds, 100--1000 times faster than human
 operators. Cognitive biases systematically distort judgment:
 confirmation bias, overconfidence, and anchoring bias are inherent
 features of human cognition, not individual failings~\cite{Reason1990}.
 The persistent 70--80\% human error contribution despite four decades of
 improvements demonstrates that these limitations are fundamental
 rather than remediable part of human-driven control.
 \subsection{HARDENS and Formal Methods}
 The High Assurance Rigorous Digital Engineering for Nuclear Safety (HARDENS)
 project represents the most advanced application of formal methods to nuclear
 reactor control systems to date. HARDENS aimed to address the nuclear industry's
 fundamental dilemma: existing U.S. nuclear control rooms rely on analog
 technologies from the 1950s--60s. This technology is woefully out of date
 compared to modern control technoligies, and incurs significant risk and cost to
 plant operation. The NRC contracted Galois to demonstrate that Model-Based
 Systems Engineering and formal methods could design, verify, and implement a
 complex protection system meeting regulatory criteria at a fraction of typical
 cost. The project delivered a Reactor Trip System (RTS) implementation with full
 traceability from NRC Request for Proposals and IEEE standards through
 formal architecture specifications to formally verified binaries and
 hardware running on FPGA demonstrator boards.
 HARDENS employed an array of formal methods tools and techniques across the
 verification hierarchy. High-level specifications used Lando, SysMLv2, and FRET
 (NASA JPL's Formal Requirements Elicitation Tool) to capture stakeholder
 requirements, domain engineering, certification requirements, and safety
 requirements. Requirements were formally analyzed for consistency, completeness,
 and realizability using SAT and SMT solvers. Executable formal models employed
 Cryptol to create an executable behavioral model of the entire RTS including all
 subsystems, components, and limited digital twin models of sensors, actuators,
 and compute infrastructure. Automatic code synthesis generated formally
 verifiable C implementations and System Verilog hardware implementations
 directly from Cryptol models---eliminating the traditional gap between
 specification and implementation where errors commonly arise.
 Despite its accomplishments, HARDENS has a fundamental limitation directly
 relevant to hybrid control synthesis: the project addressed only discrete
 digital control logic without modeling or verifying continuous reactor dynamics.
 The Reactor Trip System specification and formal verification covered discrete
 state transitions (trip/no-trip decisions), digital sensor input processing
 through discrete logic, and discrete actuation outputs (reactor trip commands).
 However, the project did not address continuous dynamics of nuclear reactor
 physics. Real reactor safety depends on the interaction between continuous
 processes (temperature, pressure, neutron flux evolving according to
 differential equations) and discrete control decisions (trip/no-trip, valve
 open/close, pump on/off). HARDENS verified the discrete controller in isolation
 but not the closed-loop hybrid system behavior.
 \textbf{LIMITATION:} \textit{HARDENS addressed discrete control logic without
 continuous dynamics or hybrid system verification.} Verifying discrete control
 logic alone provides no guarantee that the closed-loop system exhibits desired
 continuous behavior such as stability, convergence to setpoints, or maintained
 safety margins.
 HARDENS produced a demonstrator system at Technology Readiness Level 2--3
 (analytical proof of concept with laboratory breadboard validation) rather than
 a deployment-ready system validated through extended operational testing. The
 NRC Final Report explicitly notes~\cite{Kiniry2022}: ``All material is
 considered in development and not a finalized product'' and ``The demonstration
 of its technical soundness was to be at a level consistent with satisfaction of
 the current regulatory criteria, although with no explicit demonstration of how
 regulatory requirements are met.'' The project did not include deployment in
 actual nuclear facilities, testing with real reactor systems under operational
 conditions, side-by-side validation with operational analog RTS systems,
 systematic failure mode testing (radiation effects, electromagnetic
 interference, temperature extremes), actual NRC licensing review, or human
 factors validation with licensed nuclear operators in realistic control room
 scenarios.
 \textbf{LIMITATION:} \textit{HARDENS achieved TRL 2--3 without experimental
 validation.} While formal verification provides mathematical correctness
 guarantees for the implemented discrete logic, the gap between formal
 verification and actual system deployment involves myriad practical
 considerations: integration with legacy systems, long-term reliability
 under harsh environments, human-system interaction in realistic
 operational contexts, and regulatory acceptance of formal methods as
 primary assurance evidence.