Obsidian/Writing/ERLM/metrics-of-success/v1.tex

\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.