Obsidian/Writing/ERLM/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Summary.md

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!