\section{Risks and Contingencies} This research relies on several critical assumptions that, if invalidated, would require scope adjustment or methodological revision. The primary risks to successful completion fall into four categories: computational tractability of synthesis and verification, complexity of the discrete-continuous interface, completeness of procedure formalization, and hardware-in-the-loop integration challenges. Each risk has associated indicators for early detection and contingency plans that preserve research value even if core assumptions prove false. The staged project structure ensures that partial success yields publishable results and clear identification of remaining barriers to deployment. \subsection{Computational Tractability of Synthesis} The first major assumption is that formalized startup procedures will yield automata small enough for efficient synthesis and verification. Reactive synthesis scales exponentially with specification complexity, creating risk that temporal logic specifications derived from complete startup procedures may produce automata with thousands of states. Such large automata would require synthesis times exceeding days or weeks, preventing demonstration of the complete methodology within project timelines. Reachability analysis for continuous modes with high-dimensional state spaces may similarly prove computationally intractable. Either barrier would constitute a fundamental obstacle to achieving the research objectives. Several indicators would provide early warning of computational tractability problems. Synthesis times exceeding 24 hours for simplified procedure subsets would suggest complete procedures are intractable. Generated automata containing more than 1,000 discrete states would indicate the discrete state space is too large for efficient verification. Specifications flagged as unrealizable by FRET or Strix would reveal fundamental conflicts in the formalized procedures. Reachability analysis failing to converge within reasonable time bounds would show that continuous mode verification cannot be completed with available computational resources. The contingency plan for computational intractability is to reduce scope to a minimal viable startup sequence. This reduced sequence would cover only cold shutdown to criticality to low-power hold, omitting power ascension and other operational phases. The subset would still demonstrate the complete methodology while reducing computational burden. The research contribution would remain valid even with reduced scope, proving that formal hybrid control synthesis is achievable for safety-critical nuclear applications. The limitation to simplified operational sequences would be explicitly documented as a constraint rather than a failure. \subsection{Discrete-Continuous Interface Formalization} The second critical assumption concerns the mapping between boolean guard conditions in temporal logic and continuous state boundaries required for mode transitions. This interface represents the fundamental challenge of hybrid systems: relating discrete switching logic to continuous dynamics. 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, making synthesis intractable. Continuous safety regions that cannot be expressed as conjunctions of verifiable constraints would similarly create insurmountable verification challenges. The risk extends beyond static interface definition to dynamic behavior across transitions: barrier certificates may fail to exist for proposed transitions, or continuous modes may be unable to guarantee convergence to discrete transition boundaries. Early indicators of interface formalization problems would appear during both synthesis and verification phases. Guard conditions requiring complex nonlinear predicates that resist boolean abstraction would suggest fundamental misalignment between discrete specifications and continuous realities. Continuous safety regions that cannot be expressed as conjunctions of half-spaces or polynomial inequalities would indicate the interface between discrete guards and continuous invariants is too complex. Failure to construct barrier certificates proving safety across mode transitions would reveal that continuous dynamics cannot be formally related to discrete switching logic. Reachability analysis showing that continuous modes cannot reach intended transition boundaries from all possible initial conditions would demonstrate the synthesized discrete controller is incompatible with achievable continuous behavior. The primary contingency for interface complexity is restricting continuous modes to operate within polytopic invariants. Polytopes are state regions defined as intersections of linear half-spaces, which map directly to boolean predicates through linear inequality checks. This restriction ensures tractable synthesis while maintaining theoretical rigor, though at the cost of limiting expressiveness compared to arbitrary nonlinear regions. The discrete-continuous interface remains well-defined and verifiable with polytopic restrictions, providing a clear fallback position that preserves the core methodology. Conservative over-approximations offer an alternative approach: a nonlinear safe region can be inner-approximated by a polytope, sacrificing operational flexibility to maintain formal guarantees. The three-mode classification already structures the problem to minimize complex transitions, with critical safety properties concentrated in expulsory modes that can receive additional design attention. Mitigation strategies focus on designing continuous controllers with discrete transitions as primary objectives from the outset. Rather than designing continuous control laws independently and verifying transitions post-hoc, the approach uses transition requirements as design constraints. Control barrier functions provide a systematic method to synthesize controllers that guarantee forward invariance of safe sets and convergence to transition boundaries. This design-for-verification approach reduces the likelihood that interface complexity becomes insurmountable. Focusing verification effort on expulsory modes---where safety is most critical---allows more complex analysis to be applied selectively rather than uniformly across all modes, concentrating computational resources where they matter most for safety assurance. \subsection{Procedure Formalization Completeness} The third assumption is that existing startup procedures contain sufficient detail and clarity for translation into temporal logic specifications. Nuclear operating procedures, while extensively detailed, were written for human operators who bring contextual understanding and adaptive reasoning to their interpretation. Procedures may contain implicit knowledge, ambiguous directives, or references to operator judgment that resist formalization in current specification languages. Underspecified timing constraints, ambiguous condition definitions, or gaps in operational coverage would cause synthesis to fail or produce incorrect automata. The risk is not merely that formalization is difficult, but that current procedures fundamentally lack the precision required for autonomous control, revealing a gap between human-oriented documentation and machine-executable specifications. Several indicators would reveal formalization completeness problems early in the project. FRET realizability checks failing due to underspecified behaviors or conflicting requirements would indicate procedures do not form a complete specification. Multiple valid interpretations of procedural steps with no clear resolution would demonstrate procedure language is insufficiently precise for automated synthesis. Procedures referencing ``operator judgment,'' ``as appropriate,'' or similar discretionary language for critical decisions would explicitly identify points where human reasoning cannot be directly formalized. Domain experts unable to provide crisp answers to specification questions about edge cases would suggest the procedures themselves do not fully define system behavior, relying instead on operator training and experience to fill gaps. The contingency plan treats inadequate specification as itself a research contribution rather than a project failure. Documenting specific ambiguities encountered would create a taxonomy of formalization barriers: timing underspecification, missing preconditions, discretionary actions, and undefined failure modes. Each category would be analyzed to understand why current procedure-writing practices produce these gaps and what specification languages would need to address them. Proposed extensions to FRETish or similar specification languages would demonstrate how to bridge the gap between current procedures and the precision needed for autonomous control. The research output would shift from ``here is a complete autonomous controller'' to ``here is what formal autonomous control requires that current procedures do not provide, and here are language extensions to bridge that gap.'' This contribution remains valuable to both the nuclear industry and formal methods community, establishing clear requirements for next-generation procedure development and autonomous control specification languages. Early-stage procedure analysis with domain experts provides the primary mitigation strategy. Collaboration through the University of Pittsburgh Cyber Energy Center enables identification and resolution of ambiguities before synthesis attempts, rather than discovering them during failed synthesis runs. Iterative refinement with reactor operators and control engineers can clarify procedural intent before formalization begins, reducing the risk of discovering insurmountable specification gaps late in the project. Comparison with procedures from multiple reactor designs---pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, and advanced designs---may reveal common patterns and standard ambiguities amenable to systematic resolution. This cross-design analysis would strengthen the generalizability of any proposed specification language extensions, ensuring they address industry-wide practices rather than specific quirks.