\section{Metrics for Success} This research will be measured by advancement through Technology Readiness Levels, progressing from fundamental concepts to validated prototype demonstration. The work begins at TRL 2-3 and aims to reach TRL 5, where system components operate successfully in a relevant laboratory environment. This section explains why TRL advancement provides the most appropriate success metric and defines the specific criteria required to achieve TRL 5. Technology Readiness Levels provide the ideal success metric because they explicitly measure the gap between academic proof-of-concept and practical deployment. This gap is precisely what this work aims to bridge. Academic metrics like papers published or theorems proved cannot capture practical feasibility. Empirical metrics like simulation accuracy or computational speed cannot demonstrate theoretical rigor. TRLs measure both dimensions simultaneously. Advancing from TRL 3 to TRL 5 requires maintaining theoretical rigor while progressively demonstrating practical feasibility. Formal verification must remain valid as the system moves from individual components to integrated hardware testing. The nuclear industry requires extremely high assurance before deploying new control technologies. Demonstrating theoretical correctness alone is insufficient for adoption. Conversely, showing empirical performance without formal guarantees fails to meet regulatory requirements. TRLs capture this dual requirement naturally. Each level represents both increased practical maturity and sustained theoretical validity. Furthermore, TRL assessment forces explicit identification of remaining barriers to deployment. The nuclear industry already uses TRLs for technology assessment, making this metric directly relevant to potential adopters. Reaching TRL 5 provides a clear answer to industry questions about feasibility and maturity in a way that academic publications alone cannot. The work currently exists at TRL 2-3. Formal synthesis and hybrid control verification principles have been established through prior research, placing the fundamental approach at TRL 2. The SmAHTR simulation model and initial procedure analysis place specific components at early TRL 3, where proof of concept has been partially demonstrated for individual elements but not integrated. The target state is TRL 5. Moving from current state to target requires achieving three intermediate levels, each representing a distinct validation milestone: \paragraph{TRL 3 \textit{Critical Function and Proof of Concept}} For this research, TRL 3 means demonstrating that each component of the methodology works in isolation. SmAHTR startup procedures must be translated into temporal logic specifications that pass realizability analysis. A discrete automaton must be synthesized with interpretable structure. At least one continuous controller must be designed with reachability analysis proving that transition requirements are satisfied. Independent review must confirm that specifications match intended procedural behavior. This proves the fundamental approach on a simplified startup sequence. \paragraph{TRL 4 \textit{Laboratory Testing of Integrated Components}} For this research, TRL 4 means demonstrating a complete integrated hybrid controller in simulation. All SmAHTR startup procedures must be formalized with a synthesized automaton covering all operational modes. Continuous controllers must exist for all discrete modes. Verification must be complete for all mode transitions using reachability analysis, barrier certificates, and assume-guarantee contracts. The integrated controller must execute complete startup sequences in software simulation with zero safety violations across multiple consecutive runs. This proves that formal correctness guarantees can be maintained throughout system integration. \paragraph{TRL 5 \textit{Laboratory Testing in Relevant Environment}} For this research, TRL 5 means demonstrating the verified controller on industrial control hardware through hardware-in-the-loop testing. The discrete automaton must be implemented on the Emerson Ovation control system and verified to match synthesized specifications exactly. Continuous controllers must execute at required rates. The ARCADE interface must establish stable real-time communication between Ovation hardware and SmAHTR simulation. Complete autonomous startup sequences must execute via hardware-in-the-loop across the full operational envelope. The controller must handle off-nominal scenarios to validate that expulsory modes function correctly. For example, simulated sensor failures must trigger appropriate fault detection and mode transitions, and loss of cooling scenarios must activate SCRAM procedures as specified. Graded responses to minor disturbances are outside the scope of this work. Formal verification results must remain valid with discrete behavior matching specifications and continuous trajectories remaining within verified bounds. This proves that the methodology produces verified controllers implementable on industrial hardware. These levels define progressively more demanding demonstrations. TRL 3 proves individual components work. TRL 4 proves they work together in simulation. TRL 5 proves they work on actual hardware in realistic conditions. Each level builds on the previous while adding new validation requirements. Progress will be assessed quarterly through collection of specific data comparing actual results against TRL advancement criteria. Specification development status indicates progress toward TRL 3. Synthesis results and verification coverage indicate progress toward TRL 4. Simulation performance metrics and hardware integration milestones indicate progress toward TRL 5. The research plan will be revised only when new data invalidates fundamental assumptions. Unrealizable specifications indicate procedure conflicts requiring refinement or alternative reactor selection. Unverifiable dynamics suggest model simplification or alternative verification methods are needed. Unachievable real-time performance requires controller simplification or hardware upgrades. Any revision will document the invalidating data, the failed assumption, and the modified pathway with adjusted scope. This research succeeds if it achieves TRL 5 by demonstrating a complete autonomous hybrid controller with formal correctness guarantees operating on industrial control hardware through hardware-in-the-loop testing in a relevant laboratory environment. This establishes both theoretical validity and practical feasibility, proving that the methodology produces verified controllers and that implementation is achievable with current technology. It provides a clear pathway for nuclear industry adoption and broader application to safety-critical autonomous systems.