Obsidian/Writing/THESIS_PROPOSAL/ERLM-Proposal-Review-Detailed.md

# ERLM Proposal Writing Review - Comprehensive Detail

**Date**: December 2, 2025 **Framework**: Gopen's Sense of
Structure

---

## How to Use This Document

- **Each issue has a checkbox** `- [ ]` for tracking your
revision progress
- **Issues organized by section** and then by level
(sentence, paragraph, content)
- **Cross-references to Summary doc** for patterns and
principles
- **Work section-by-section** - complete one section before
moving to next
- **Check off items as you revise** - provides visual
progress tracking

For pattern explanations and principles, see the **Executive
Summary** document.

---

## 1. Goals and Outcomes Section

### 1.1 Sentence-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 4-6** - Weak stress position
  - Current: "The goal of this research is to develop a
  methodology for creating autonomous hybrid control systems
  with mathematical guarantees of safe and correct
  behavior."
  - Issue: Sentence ends with "correct behavior" (weak,
  expected). Key innovation is "methodology for creating"
  with "mathematical guarantees"
  - See Summary: Pattern 1 (Stress Position Weakness)
  - Suggested fix: "The goal of this research is to develop
  autonomous hybrid control systems that guarantee
  mathematically safe and correct behavior."

- [ ] **Lines 9-11** - Weak stress position + passive
construction
  - Current: "Nuclear power plants require the highest
  levels of control system reliability, where failures can
  result in significant economic losses, service
  interruptions, or radiological release."
  - Issue: List ends with weakest item first (economic
  losses < radiological release). Also "can result in" is
  weak
  - Fix: "Nuclear power plants require the highest levels of
  control system reliability: failures risk radiological
  release, service interruptions, or significant economic
  losses."

- [ ] **Lines 13-17** - Buried key claim
  - 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: Key points (extensively trained, detailed
  procedures, strict requirements) buried in middle. Ends
  weakly with "manage reactor control"
  - Fix: "Currently, nuclear plant operations require
  extensively trained human operators following detailed
  written procedures under strict regulatory requirements."

- [ ] **Lines 16-17** - Topic position break
  - Current: "These operators make critical decisions about
  when to switch between different control modes..."
  - Issue: "These operators" okay, but could be tighter as
  "They" since immediately follows previous sentence about
  operators
  - Fix: "They make critical decisions..."

- [ ] **Lines 19-20** - Passive "prevents the introduction
of"
  - Current: "However, this reliance on human operators
  prevents the introduction of autonomous control
  capabilities..."
  - Issue: Nominalization "introduction" + passive "prevents
  introduction"
  - Fix: "However, this reliance on human operators prevents
  introducing autonomous control capabilities..." or
  "...makes autonomous control impossible"

- [ ] **Lines 22-23** - Topic position break
  - Current (new paragraph): "Emerging technologies like
  small modular reactors face significantly higher..."
  - Issue: Abrupt shift from "reliance on operators" to
  "emerging technologies"
  - Fix: "This limitation creates particular challenges for
  emerging technologies like small modular reactors, which
  face..."

- [ ] **Lines 25-27** - Weak stress position +
nominalization
  - Current: "What is needed is a way to create autonomous
  control systems that can safely manage complex operational
  sequences..."
  - Issue: Ends with "constant human supervision" (the
  problem, not the solution). Also "what is needed" is
  passive framing
  - Fix: "Autonomous control systems must safely manage
  complex operational sequences with the same assurance as
  human-operated systems, but without constant human
  supervision."

- [ ] **Lines 30-31** - Weak stress position
  - Current: "To address this need, we will combine formal
  methods from computer science with control theory to build
  hybrid control systems that are correct by construction."
  - Issue: Ends with "correct by construction" which is
  good, but could emphasize the combination more
  - Fix: "To address this need, we will build hybrid control
  systems that are correct by construction by combining
  formal methods from computer science with control theory."

- [ ] **Lines 33-37** - Long complex sentence (45 words)
  - Current: "Hybrid systems use discrete logic to switch
  between continuous control modes, similar to how operators
  change control strategies, and existing formal methods can
  generate provably correct switching logic from written
  requirements, but they cannot handle the continuous
  dynamics that occur during transitions between modes."
  - Issue: Two "and" clauses plus a "but" clause—very
  complex
  - Fix (split): "Hybrid systems use discrete logic to
  switch between continuous control modes, similar to how
  operators change control strategies. Existing formal
  methods can generate provably correct switching logic from
  written requirements. However, they cannot handle the
  continuous dynamics that occur during transitions between
  modes."

- [ ] **Lines 37-39** - Another long complex sentence
  - Current: "Meanwhile, traditional control theory can
  verify continuous behavior but lacks tools for proving
  correctness of discrete switching decisions."
  - Issue: This is actually fine as-is, but note the
  parallel "X can do A but lacks B" structure matches
  previous sentence well

- [ ] **Lines 40-45** - Very long complex sentence (60+
words)
  - Current: "By synthesizing discrete mode transitions
  directly from written operating procedures and verifying
  continuous behavior between transitions, we can create
  hybrid control systems with end-to-end correctness
  guarantees. If we can formalize existing procedures into
  logical specifications and verify that continuous dynamics
  satisfy transition requirements, then we can build
  autonomous controllers that are provably free from design
  defects."
  - Issue: Two long sentences that are somewhat repetitive
  - Fix: Consider combining or cutting redundancy. The first
  sentence is strong; the second restates it with
  "if...then" structure that's less confident
  - Suggested: Keep first sentence, delete second, or
  shorten second to: "This approach yields autonomous
  controllers provably free from design defects."

- [ ] **Lines 47-48** - Weak stress position
  - Current: "This approach will enable autonomous control
  in nuclear power plants while maintaining the high safety
  standards required by the industry."
  - Issue: Ends with "required by the industry"—old
  information
  - Fix: "This approach will maintain the high safety
  standards nuclear power plants require while enabling
  autonomous control."

- [ ] **Lines 50-53** - Long sentence with embedded clause
  - Current: "This work is conducted within the University
  of Pittsburgh Cyber Energy Center, which provides access
  to industry collaboration and Emerson control hardware,
  ensuring that solutions developed are aligned with
  practical implementation requirements."
  - Issue: "Ensuring that" is weak; also passive "solutions
  developed"
  - Fix: "This work is conducted within the University of
  Pittsburgh Cyber Energy Center, which provides industry
  collaboration and access to Emerson control hardware. This
  ensures our solutions align with practical implementation
  requirements."

### 1.2 Paragraph-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 3-6 (Goal paragraph)** - Could be stronger
  - Current: Single sentence stating the goal
  - Issue: While clear, could benefit from a second sentence
  stating why this goal matters (the issue)
  - Fix: Add after line 6: "Such guarantees are essential
  for safety-critical systems where verification through
  testing alone cannot provide adequate assurance."

- [ ] **Lines 29-53 (Approach paragraph)** - Too dense,
covers multiple sub-topics
  - Current: One large paragraph covering: (1) solution
  approach, (2) rationale about hybrid systems, (3) existing
  limitations, (4) hypothesis, (5) payoff, (6)
  qualifications
  - Issue: This is really 2-3 paragraphs worth of content
  - Fix: Break into two paragraphs:
    - Para 1 (lines 30-38): Solution and rationale
    - Para 2 (lines 40-48): Hypothesis and payoff
    - Keep qualifications (lines 50-53) with payoff or as
    separate brief paragraph

- [ ] **Outcome paragraphs (58-101)** - Generally strong
structure
  - Each outcome has: Title → Strategy → Outcome structure,
  which is excellent
  - Minor issue: The strategy/outcome distinction could be
  sharper. Currently reads as "We will do X. Engineers will
  be able to Y." Consider: "We will do X, enabling engineers
  to Y."
  - Fix for each:
    - Lines 63-72: Combine last two sentences:
    "...synthesized into discrete control logic, enabling
    control system engineers to generate verified
    mode-switching controllers..."
    - Lines 77-85: Similar combination possible
    - Lines 91-99: Similar combination possible

### 1.3 Content and Organization Issues

- [ ] **Overall structure** - Excellent
  - The four-paragraph opening (goal → problem → approach →
  outcomes) is very strong
  - The enumerated outcomes are clear and specific
  - Impact paragraph provides good closure
  - No major reorganization needed

- [ ] **Technical detail level** - Appropriate
  - Good balance of specificity (SmAHTR, Emerson hardware)
  without overwhelming detail
  - Outcomes are concrete and measurable

- [ ] **Missing elements** - None critical
  - All standard goal section elements present
  - Qualifications established
  - Scope clearly defined

---

## 2. State of the Art Section

### 2.1 Sentence-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 3-9** - Long opening sentence (46 words)
  - Current: "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."
  - Issue: Two sentences could be more tightly connected
  - Fix: "The principal aim of this research is to create
  autonomous reactor control systems that are tractably
  safe. Understanding what we automate requires first
  understanding current reactor operation."

- [ ] **Lines 6-9** - Roadmap sentence is good but could be
punchier
  - Current: "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..."
  - Issue: Passive constructions throughout ("is discussed",
  "are examined", "are investigated")
  - Fix: "We first discuss the reactor operator, then
  examine the operating procedures we will leverage, next
  investigate human operation limitations, and finally
  review current formal methods approaches to reactor
  control."

- [ ] **Lines 13-19** - Good opening, solid statistics
  - Current paragraph opener establishes scale and scope
  well
  - No major issues

- [ ] **Lines 21-34** - Very long paragraph with complex
structure
  - Current: "The role of human operators is
  paradoxically..." through "...fulfill this responsibility
  under all conditions"
  - Issue: This paragraph tries to do too much: (1) paradox
  of operator role, (2) TMI example, (3) commission finding
  - Fix: Consider breaking after line 24 (TMI example) into
  new paragraph

- [ ] **Lines 24-26** - Long embedded quote
  - Current: "operators \"misread confusing and
  contradictory readings and shut off the emergency water
  system\""
  - Issue: Long quote breaks sentence flow
  - Fix: Paraphrase or shorten: "operators misread
  contradictory readings and shut off the emergency water
  system"

- [ ] **Lines 44-51** - Extremely long sentence (58 words)
  - Current: "These procedures must comply with 10 CFR
  50.34(b)(6)(ii) and are developed using guidance from
  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, but despite these rigorous development
  processes..."
  - Issue: Actually two long sentences with parallel "X but
  Y" structure, both 50+ words
  - Fix: Break into shorter sentences: "These procedures
  must comply with 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii) and are developed
  using guidance from NUREG-0899. However, their development
  process relies on expert judgment and simulator validation
  rather than formal verification. Procedures undergo
  technical evaluation, simulator validation testing, and
  biennial review under 10 CFR 55.59. Despite these rigorous
  processes..."

- [ ] **Lines 48-51** - Weak stress position
  - Current: "...or that transitions between procedure sets
  maintain safety invariants."
  - Issue: Ends with weakest of three items
  - Fix: Reorder list to build to most important: "...that
  transitions maintain safety invariants, that actions can
  be completed within available timeframes, or that
  procedures cover all possible plant states."

- [ ] **Lines 53-60 (LIMITATION callout)** - Generally
strong
  - The bold "LIMITATION:" callouts are excellent framing
  devices
  - Minor: Some repetition between paragraph text and
  limitation summary
  - Consider whether limitation box needs all the detail or
  can be more concise

- [ ] **Lines 74-79** - Topic string break
  - Current: "The current division between automated and
  human-controlled functions reveals the fundamental
  challenge..."
  - Previous paragraph ended discussing automatic vs. manual
  control modes
  - This starts with "current division" which is good
  topic-position continuity
  - Minor issue: "%%%NEED MORE" comment at line 79 indicates
  incomplete thought

- [ ] **Lines 81-85 (LIMITATION callout)** - Weak stress
position in callout
  - Current: "...or optimize the automation-human
  interaction trade-off with provable safety bounds."
  - Issue: Ends with least important item (optimization <
  verification < mathematical guarantees)
  - Fix: "...verify timing properties formally, or provide
  mathematical guarantees across mode transitions."

- [ ] **Lines 94-97** - Statistics presentation
  - Current: "Multiple independent analyses converge on a
  striking statistic: \\textbf{70--80\\% of all nuclear
  power plant events..."
  - Issue: Good use of bold for key statistics. Consider
  whether all statistics need similar treatment for
  consistency
  - Note: Lines 100, 119, 125-126 have more
  statistics—ensure consistent emphasis treatment

- [ ] **Lines 97-99** - Very strong claim, good stress
position
  - Current: "...the International Atomic Energy Agency
  concluded that \"human error was the root cause of all
  severe accidents at nuclear power plants\"---a categorical
  statement..."
  - This is excellent—emphatic claim in stress position with
  proper emphasis

- [ ] **Lines 108-121 (TMI paragraph)** - Generally strong
narrative
  - Good use of specific timeline and technical detail
  - Line 119: "\\textbf{44\\% of the fuel melting}" - good
  emphasis
  - Line 118: "core quickly began to overheat" - could be
  more specific: "core began overheating within minutes" or
  similar

- [ ] **Lines 122-143** - Technical paragraph with many
statistics
  - Dense paragraph with HRA methods, HEPs, performance
  shaping factors
  - Line 128: "%%%SOURCE???" indicates missing citation
  - Lines 131-132: Bold statistics are effective
  - Lines 136-142: Many bolded numbers—ensure not overusing
  bold
  - Overall structure is good but very dense

- [ ] **Lines 145-153** - Rasmussen taxonomy paragraph
  - Good integration of cognitive psychology
  - Line 151: "%%%WHAT IS A CHUNK?" indicates need for brief
  explanation
  - Consider adding: "(a 'chunk' is a unit of information
  that can be held as a single entity in working memory)"

- [ ] **Lines 154-163 (LIMITATION callout)** - Very strong
  - This limitation statement is one of the best—specific,
  well-supported, emphatic
  - No changes needed

### 2.2 Paragraph-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 13-34 (Operator role paragraph)** - Break into
two paragraphs
  - Current: One long paragraph covering operator
  qualifications AND paradoxical role with TMI example
  - Issue: Two distinct points being made
  - Fix: Break after line 19 (end of qualification/staffing
  discussion) before starting paradox discussion (line 21)

- [ ] **Lines 36-61 (Procedures paragraph)** - Very long,
multiple sub-topics
  - Current: Covers (1) procedure hierarchy, (2) development
  process, (3) lack of verification
  - Issue: 26 lines is too long for reader attention span
  - Fix: Break into two paragraphs:
    - Para 1: Procedure hierarchy and development (lines
    36-46)
    - Para 2: Lack of formal verification (lines 47-51, then
    LIMITATION box)

- [ ] **Lines 88-107 (Human factors intro paragraph)** -
Dense but well-structured
  - Opens with strong point-issue structure
  - Provides multiple converging lines of evidence
  - Could potentially break after line 102 (end of
  statistics) before starting specific analysis (line 103),
  but current structure works

- [ ] **Lines 108-121 (TMI narrative)** - Excellent
storytelling
  - Clear chronological structure
  - Specific technical details
  - Builds to climax (44% fuel melting)
  - No changes needed

- [ ] **Lines 122-143 (HRA methods paragraph)** - Very dense
  - Topic: HRA methods and quantitative error rates
  - Issue: Many numbers and concepts in rapid succession
  - Consider: Could break after line 133 (end of nominal
  rates) before starting performance shaping factors (line
  135)

### 2.3 Content and Organization Issues

- [ ] **Section length** - 358 lines, longest in proposal
  - Issue: Risk of reader fatigue/losing track of argument
  - Recommendation: Consider whether all detail is
  necessary, or if some could move to appendix
  - Specifically: HARDENS subsection (lines 165-295) is 131
  lines—nearly as long as entire Research Approach section

- [ ] **HARDENS subsection structure** - Well-organized but
very detailed
  - Four sub-subsections: Feasibility Demonstrated (23
  lines), Methods Toolkit (42 lines), Discrete Limitation
  (33 lines), Validation Gap (33 lines)
  - Issue: While all interesting, does the proposal need
  this much detail on HARDENS?
  - Recommendation: Consider condensing or restructuring to
  focus more on the gap you're filling rather than
  recounting HARDENS accomplishments
  - Current structure spends 65 lines on what HARDENS did
  well, 66 lines on limitations. Could reverse this
  proportion.

- [ ] **"Research Imperative" subsection (296-358)** -
Excellent synthesis but placement
  - Content: Strong synthesis of three converging lines of
  evidence
  - Issue: This feels like it belongs at the START of
  Research Approach section rather than end of SOTA
  - Current: SOTA → lists problems → Research Imperative →
  Research Approach → here's what we'll do
  - Alternative: SOTA → lists problems → Research Approach
  starts with Imperative → here's what we'll do
  - Consider: Moving lines 296-358 to open Research Approach
  section

- [ ] **LIMITATION callouts** - Excellent framing device
  - Used consistently throughout: lines 53-60, 81-85,
  154-163, 254-263, 287-294
  - These are very effective at signaling gaps
  - Minor: Ensure consistent formatting (all bold, all
  italic "LIMITATION:")

- [ ] **Transition from Current Practice to HARDENS** -
Could be smoother
  - Line 165 starts "The High Assurance Rigorous Digital
  Engineering..." abruptly
  - Consider adding transition sentence: "Recent work
  demonstrates that formal methods can address some of these
  challenges. The High Assurance..."

### 2.4 State of the Art Section - Additional Issues

- [ ] **Lines 165-173 (HARDENS intro)** - Opening could be
tighter
  - Current: Two sentences introducing HARDENS, second
  describes it as "most advanced application...and
  simultaneously reveals the critical gaps"
  - Issue: "Simultaneously reveals gaps" is your framing,
  not inherent to HARDENS
  - Fix: "...represents the most advanced application of
  formal methods to nuclear control systems to date. As we
  will show, it also illuminates the critical gaps that
  remain."

- [ ] **Lines 175-181 (HARDENS motivation)** - Good context
  - Explains the problem HARDENS addressed
  - No major issues

- [ ] **Lines 182-190** - Statistics on accomplishment
  - Line 185-186: "\\textbf{nine months at a tiny fraction
  of typical control system costs}" - good emphasis
  - Consider: "at a tiny fraction" is vague. If you have
  even rough numbers, use them: "at less than 10% of typical
  costs" or similar

- [ ] **Lines 192-198 (Kiniry and methodology)** - Dense
paragraph
  - Introduces PI, methodology, digital twins, fidelity
  - Many concepts in quick succession
  - Consider: This could be two paragraphs—one on
  Kiniry/team, one on methodology

- [ ] **Lines 200-231 (Comprehensive toolkit subsection)** -
Very detailed
  - Lists many tools: Lando, SysMLv2, FRET, SAT, SMT,
  Cryptol, SAW, Frama-C, Yosys
  - Issue: Readers may get lost in the tool list and miss
  the key point
  - Consider: Leading with the key point, then briefly
  listing tools as support
  - Current: "HARDENS employed impressive array..." → lists
  tools
  - Alternative: "HARDENS demonstrated complete verification
  from requirements to implementation [key point], using an
  impressive array of tools including..."

- [ ] **Lines 207-210** - Bolded text for emphasis
  - "\\textbf{consistency, completeness, and realizability}"
    - good
  - "\\textbf{complete formal verification from requirements
  to implementation is technically feasible}" - excellent
  key claim, right emphasis

- [ ] **Lines 232-263 (Critical Limitation subsection)** -
Very strong
  - Clear statement of limitation (discrete only, no
  continuous)
  - Specific enumeration of what was/wasn't covered
  - Strong LIMITATION callout
  - This is excellent and no changes needed

- [ ] **Lines 265-294 (Validation Gap subsection)** - Clear
and specific
  - Explains TRL limitation
  - Lists what wasn't done
  - Good LIMITATION callout
  - Minor: Some repetition between paragraph text and
  LIMITATION box

### 2.5 State of the Art Section - Sentence-Level Continued

- [ ] **Line 296-311 (Research Imperative opening)** -
Strong synthesis
  - "Three converging lines of evidence" is excellent
  framing
  - Three paragraphs parallel each other well
  - Consider: These three paragraphs are quite dense—each
  could potentially be broken into smaller units

- [ ] **Lines 302-309** - Weak stress position
  - Current: "Despite extensive regulatory frameworks
  developed over six decades, \\textbf{no mathematical
  guarantees exist} that current control approaches maintain
  safety under all possible scenarios."
  - Issue: Actually good—ends with the key claim (no
  mathematical guarantees)
  - The bold emphasis helps, but could still be stronger:
  "...six decades of extensive regulatory frameworks. Yet
  \\textbf{no mathematical guarantees exist}..."

- [ ] **Lines 312-322** - Another dense summary paragraph
  - Synthesizes human factors argument
  - Many numbers cited: 70-80%, 7±2, 0.001-0.01, 0.1-1.0
  - Strong final sentence: "These limitations
  \\textbf{cannot be overcome through human factors
  improvements alone}."

- [ ] **Lines 324-335** - HARDENS summary paragraph
  - Recaps accomplishments and gaps
  - Final sentence is key: "These limitations directly
  define the research frontier: \\textbf{formal synthesis of
  hybrid controllers that provide mathematical safety
  guarantees...}"
  - Very strong, good emphasis

- [ ] **Lines 336-358 (Final "opportunity" paragraph)** -
Long but powerful
  - 23 lines synthesizing the argument
  - Strong technical detail
  - Ends well: "compelling and timely research opportunity"
  - Consider: Could break after line 346 (end of problem
  statement) before starting solution (line 347 "Hybrid
  control synthesis offers...")

---

## 3. Research Approach Section

### 3.1 Sentence-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 3-6** - Weak stress position in opening
sentence
  - Current: "This research will overcome the limitations of
  current practice to build high-assurance hybrid control
  systems for critical infrastructure."
  - Issue: Ends with "critical infrastructure"—generic and
  expected
  - Fix: "This research will build high-assurance hybrid
  control systems by overcoming current practice
  limitations."

- [ ] **Lines 6-14** - Equations introduced clearly
  - Good contextualization of equations (hybrid = continuous
    + discrete)
  - Minor: Lines 16-17 have $f(\cdot)$ and $\nu(\cdot)$
  explanations that could reference equation numbers

- [ ] **Lines 19-20** - Topic position could be smoother
  - Current: "Our focus centers on continuous autonomous
  hybrid systems..."
  - Previous sentence discusses "control input $u$"
  - Could connect better: "Within this hybrid framework, we
  focus on continuous autonomous systems..."

- [ ] **Line 23** - Example is good but could be emphasized
  - Current: "For example, a nuclear reactor switching from
  warm-up to load-following control cannot instantaneously
  change its temperature or control rod position, but can
  instantaneously change control laws."
  - Issue: Key insight (continuous states unchanged,
  discrete transitions instant) could be more prominent
  - Fix: "Physical systems exhibit this property naturally:
  a nuclear reactor switching from warm-up to load-following
  control changes control laws instantly, but its
  temperature and control rod position evolve continuously."

- [ ] **Lines 26-28** - Good framing of three thrusts
  - Clear enumeration
  - No major issues

- [ ] **Lines 30-38** - Enumeration formatting
  - Using \\begin{enumerate} is good
  - Items are parallel in structure
  - Consider: Items 1-2 are short (one line), item 3 is
  longer (two lines). Could make more parallel by expanding
  1-2 slightly

- [ ] **Lines 40-41** - Weak metadiscourse
  - Current: "The following sections discuss how these
  thrusts will be accomplished."
  - Issue: Pure metadiscourse, provides no information
  - Fix: Delete entirely, or combine with previous: "...we
  must accomplish three main thrusts, each detailed below:"

### 3.2 Research Approach - Subsection 1 (Procedures →
Temporal Logic)

- [ ] **Lines 42** - Subsection title uses math notation
  - Current: "$(Procedures \wedge FRET) \rightarrow Temporal
  Specifications$"
  - Issue: Clever but potentially unclear. Not all readers
  will parse this as "Procedures AND FRET implies Temporal
  Specs"
  - Consider: Adding plain-English subtitle: "Translating
  Procedures into Temporal Logic"

- [ ] **Lines 44-49** - Opening paragraph point could be
sharper
  - Current: "The motivation behind this work stems from the
  fact that commercial nuclear power operations remain
  manually controlled..."
  - Issue: "The motivation behind this work" is weak
  opening. More direct: "Commercial nuclear power operations
  remain manually controlled despite advances in control
  systems. However, operators follow highly prescriptive,
  well-documented procedures—suggesting that autonomous
  control is technically feasible."

- [ ] **Lines 51-55** - Good clear claim
  - "Written procedures and requirements...are sufficiently
  detailed that we may be able to translate them into
  logical formulae with minimal effort."
  - This is a strong claim and key assumption
  - Consider: "Minimal effort" may overstate—later sections
  describe significant work in FRET formalization
  - Fix: "...that we can systematically translate them into
  logical formulae."

- [ ] **Lines 60-68** - SCRAM example is excellent
  - Specific natural language requirement
  - Translation to temporal logic with explanation
  - Clear equation formatting
  - Consider: This is a model for what examples should look
  like

- [ ] **Lines 70-75** - Explanation of operators
  - Good: Explains what $G$, $X$, $U$ mean in context
  - Helps readers unfamiliar with temporal logic

- [ ] **Lines 76-81** - FRET introduction
  - Clear motivation for why FRET
  - Could be slightly tighter: "The most efficient path to
  accomplish this translation is through NASA's Formal
  Requirements Elicitation Tool (FRET)"
  - Consider: "Most efficient" is a strong claim. Have you
  compared alternatives? If not, soften: "NASA's FRET
  provides a systematic path for this translation"

- [ ] **Lines 83-93 (FRET six components)** - Clear
enumeration
  - Parallel structure
  - Good use of italics for questions
  - Line 84: "%CITE FRET MANUAL" - needs citation
  - Minor: Some items very short (line 90 just "Shall"),
  others longer. Consider whether parallel structure could
  be tighter

- [ ] **Lines 95-110** - Realizability paragraph
  - Opens with strong point: "FRET provides functionality to
  check the *realizability*..."
  - Explains what realizability means
  - Makes clear argument for why this matters (finding bugs
  early)
  - Structure is good

- [ ] **Lines 105-110** - Second category of realizability
  - Discusses undefined behaviors
  - Good point about autonomous controllers needing complete
  specifications
  - Line 107-108: "This ambiguity is undesirable for
  high-assurance systems, since even well-trained humans
  remain prone to errors" - good connection back to human
  factors from SOTA

- [ ] **Lines 112-115** - Closing/transition
  - States that FRET exports to synthesis tools
  - Good transition to next subsection
  - Line 114-115: "progression to the next step of our
  approach" - could be more specific about what that next
  step is

### 3.3 Research Approach - Subsection 2 (Temporal Logic →
Discrete Automata)

- [ ] **Line 117** - Subsection title again uses math
notation
  - Same issue as line 42
  - Consider adding plain-English subtitle

- [ ] **Lines 119-122** - Opening defines reactive synthesis
  - Good clear definition
  - "Active research field" - consider whether you need to
  say this. It's clear from the work that this is active
  research.

- [ ] **Lines 123-133** - Description of automata
  - Explains finite states, transitions, etc.
  - Good pedagogical approach
  - Lines 131-132: "Hybrid systems naturally exhibit
  discrete behavior amenable to formal analysis through
  these finite state representations" - this is a key claim
  and could be more prominent

- [ ] **Lines 135-143** - Strix tool and implementation
  - Good specific tool choice with justification (SYNTCOMP
  performance)
  - Lines 138-139: "maximizing generated automata quality" -
  what does quality mean here? Minimal states?
  Interpretability? Could be more specific
  - Lines 140-143: Implementation discussion is good—notes
  that automaton provides communication path to programmers
  without formal methods expertise

- [ ] **Lines 145-158** - Why discrete automata /
correctness argument
  - This paragraph makes the key argument for
  correct-by-construction
  - Strong rhetorical structure: "because X, we can prove Y"
  - Lines 150-154: Comparison with human operators is
  effective
  - Lines 155-158: "By synthesizing controllers from logical
  specifications with guaranteed correctness, we eliminate
  the possibility of switching errors" - very strong claim,
  worth emphasizing

- [ ] **Line 158** - Ends with strong claim
  - "...we eliminate the possibility of switching errors."
  - Excellent stress position—key contribution
  - Consider: Adding emphasis (bold or italics) to this
  claim

### 3.4 Research Approach - Subsection 3 (Continuous Modes)

- [ ] **Lines 160-161** - Subsection title
  - Again uses math notation
  - This one is longer: "$(DiscreteAutomata \wedge
  ControlTheory \wedge Reachability) \rightarrow
  ContinuousModes$"
  - Consider plain-English subtitle

- [ ] **Lines 163-168** - Opening paragraph
  - Good point that discrete is only half
  - Refers back to equation 1 (good callback)
  - States section purpose clearly

- [ ] **Lines 170-176** - Continuous modes after discrete
  - Explains why discrete comes first
  - "Physics-agnostic specifications" is good phrase
  - Rationale is clear

- [ ] **Lines 177-208** - Three-mode classification
  - **This is a key contribution and should be highlighted
  more prominently**
  - Current: Presented as straightforward categorization
  - Issue: This is novel! Stabilizing/Transitory/Expulsory
  framework is your innovation
  - Fix: Add sentence before enumeration: "We propose a
  three-mode classification based on discrete transition
  structure. This taxonomy enables systematic continuous
  controller design tailored to each mode's objectives."

- [ ] **Lines 183-189 (Stabilizing mode)** - Clear
definition
  - Good explanation with example
  - "Nodes with only incoming transitions" is clever—shows
  how discrete structure determines continuous requirements

- [ ] **Lines 191-197 (Transitory mode)** - Clear definition
  - Good explanation
  - Minor: "Secondary objectives" (line 195)—could clarify
  with example

- [ ] **Lines 199-207 (Expulsory mode)** - Clear definition
  - Good emphasis on safety constraints
  - SCRAM example is excellent
  - This definition is slightly longer than the other
  two—appropriate given importance

- [ ] **Lines 209-221** - Why build continuous after
discrete
  - Makes clear argument for the approach
  - "Local controller design focused on satisfying discrete
  transitions" - key insight
  - Lines 213-214: "Current techniques struggle...because
  dynamic discontinuities complicate verification" - good
  problem statement
  - Lines 214-221: Explains how your approach avoids this
  problem

- [ ] **Lines 220-221** - Introduces three techniques
  - "To ensure continuous modes satisfy their requirements,
  we will employ three main techniques..."
  - Good signposting
  - Note: "employ" again—consider "use" or restructure to
  make techniques the subject

- [ ] **Lines 223-232 (Reachability Analysis)** - Clear
explanation
  - Defines technique
  - States what it's used for
  - Mentions recent advances (neural networks for
  Hamilton-Jacobi)
  - Well-structured

- [ ] **Lines 234-240 (Assume-Guarantee Contracts)** - Clear
explanation
  - Explains compositional approach
  - Shows how contracts enable local analysis
  - Minor: Line 234 says "will be employed"—passive. Fix:
  "We will use assume-guarantee contracts..." or
  "Assume-guarantee contracts enable..."

- [ ] **Lines 242-249 (Barrier Certificates)** - Clear
explanation
  - Explains what they prove
  - Gives specific example
  - Technical detail (differential inequality conditions) is
  appropriate
  - Well-structured

- [ ] **Lines 250-273 (SmAHTR demonstration)** - Excellent
specificity
  - This paragraph provides concrete detail: SmAHTR,
  Simulink model, Emerson Ovation, ARCADE
  - Multiple sentences are quite long (lines 252-260 is 60+
  words, lines 261-271 is 73 words)
  - Consider breaking these into shorter sentences for
  readability

- [ ] **Lines 275-289 (Concluding paragraph)** - Strong
synthesis
  - "Unified approach" language is good
  - Connects back to gap from SOTA
  - Final sentence (lines 285-289) is long (66 words) but
  well-structured
  - Ends strongly: "...domain where operating procedures are
  well-documented and safety is paramount."

- [ ] **Lines 290-296** - Comments for future revision
  - These should be removed from final version
  - But they're good notes: figures, validation approach,
  examples
  - Consider whether any should be addressed before
  submission

### 3.5 Research Approach - Paragraph-Level Issues

- [ ] **Opening paragraph (lines 3-24)** - Could be split
  - Current: Covers (1) overcoming limitations, (2)
  equations, (3) focus on continuous autonomous systems, (4)
  example
  - Issue: Four distinct sub-topics in one paragraph
  - Consider: Breaking after line 14 (after equations) or
  after line 20 (after focus statement)

- [ ] **Three-thrust framing (lines 26-38)** - Good
structure
  - Clear signposting
  - Enumeration is parallel
  - Consider: The metadiscourse sentence (lines 40-41) could
  be deleted or moved to introduction

- [ ] **FRET component enumeration (lines 86-93)** - Could
be formatted better
  - Currently as enumeration which is good
  - But questions in italics could be formatted more
  consistently
  - Consider: Making all questions boldface or using a
  different structure

### 3.6 Research Approach - Content Issues

- [ ] **Three-mode classification prominence** -
Underemphasized
  - This appears to be a novel contribution
  - Currently presented as straightforward categorization
  - Should be highlighted as key methodological innovation
  - Consider: Adding sentence like "This classification, to
  our knowledge, has not been systematically applied to
  hybrid control synthesis before."

- [ ] **Tool choices** - Well justified
  - FRET: choice is well-motivated
  - Strix: justified by SYNTCOMP performance
  - Reachability, barrier certificates: standard techniques
  - No issues

- [ ] **Level of technical detail** - Appropriate
  - Enough detail to demonstrate feasibility
  - Not so much that non-experts are lost
  - Good balance

- [ ] **Examples** - Excellent
  - SCRAM requirement (line 60) - very specific
  - Load-following controller (line 187) - clear
  - Warm-up procedure (line 193) - clear
  - SCRAM as expulsory mode (line 203) - powerful callback

---

## 4. Metrics of Success Section

### 4.1 Sentence-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 3-8** - Opening paragraph
  - States TRL approach clearly
  - Line 6: "This section explains why TRL advancement
  provides..." - metadiscourse could be tighter
  - Fix: Delete line 6-8 (metadiscourse) or combine:
  "Technology Readiness Levels provide the ideal metric,
  measuring both..."

- [ ] **Lines 10-19** - TRL justification paragraph 1
  - Makes argument for why TRLs
  - Multiple short sentences with parallel structure
  - Effective rhetoric
  - Line 16-17: "This gap is precisely what this work aims
  to bridge" - good, but "this work" could be "we aim"

- [ ] **Lines 21-31** - TRL justification paragraph 2
  - Continues argument
  - Good points about nuclear industry requirements
  - Lines 29-31: Weak stress position - ends with
  "publications alone cannot" (negative)
  - Fix: "...making this metric directly relevant to
  potential adopters and clearly demonstrating feasibility
  and maturity."

- [ ] **Lines 32-39** - Current/target TRL
  - Clear statement of starting point and goal
  - Good signposting: "Moving from current state to target
  requires..."
  - Minor: "Early TRL 3" (line 35)—is "early" necessary?
  Could just say "TRL 3"

- [ ] **Lines 41-49 (TRL 3 definition)** - Clear and
specific
  - Paragraph format beginning with "\\paragraph{TRL 3...}"
  is good
  - Specific criteria listed
  - Line 43: "For this research, TRL 3 means..." - clear
  personalization
  - Good structure

- [ ] **Lines 51-60 (TRL 4 definition)** - Clear and
specific
  - Similar structure to TRL 3, which is good
  - Specific criteria
  - "Zero safety violations" (line 59) - good concrete
  metric

- [ ] **Lines 62-78 (TRL 5 definition)** - Longest and most
detailed
  - Appropriate given it's the target
  - Lines 71-76: Discussion of off-nominal scenarios is good
  - Line 73-74: "Graded responses to minor disturbances are
  outside the scope" - good explicit scoping statement
  - Minor: Could potentially break into two paragraphs—one
  on hardware (lines 62-70), one on validation (lines 70-78)

- [ ] **Lines 80-83** - Synthesis of TRL progression
  - "These levels define progressively more demanding
  demonstrations" - good summary
  - Three parallel statements: "TRL 3 proves..., TRL 4
  proves..., TRL 5 proves..." - effective
  - Could be even more parallel: "TRL 3 proves individual
  components work. TRL 4 proves they integrate in
  simulation. TRL 5 proves they run on industrial hardware."

- [ ] **Lines 85-96** - Quarterly assessment and revision
criteria
  - Long paragraph covering two topics: (1) progress
  assessment, (2) revision triggers
  - Consider breaking after line 89 (end of assessment
  discussion) before starting revision discussion (line 90)
  - Lines 91-94: Three specific failure modes listed - good
  concrete triggers

### 4.2 Paragraph-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 10-31** - Two TRL justification paragraphs
  - Issue: These two paragraphs both argue why TRLs are
  appropriate
  - Could be combined into single tighter paragraph
  - Current word count: ~160 words across two paragraphs
  - Fix: Combine key points into one paragraph (~120 words),
  make argument more concise

- [ ] **TRL definitions (lines 41-78)** - Three paragraphs
in parallel structure
  - Excellent parallelism
  - Each uses "For this research, TRL X means..."
  - Each lists specific criteria
  - Each ends with "This proves..."
  - This is very effective and should be maintained

- [ ] **Lines 98-105** - Success statement
  - Opens with clear claim: "This research succeeds if..."
  - Explains why this demonstrates success
  - Good closing paragraph for section

### 4.3 Metrics Section - Content Issues

- [ ] **Justification for TRLs** - Somewhat defensive tone
  - Two paragraphs (lines 10-31) justifying why TRLs are
  appropriate
  - While argument is sound, the length suggests
  defensiveness
  - Consider: Could this be condensed to make it feel less
  defensive?
  - Alternative: Perhaps reviewers have questioned TRL
  approach in past? If so, this is appropriate.

- [ ] **Measurability** - Excellent
  - Each TRL has concrete, measurable criteria
  - "Fewer than 1,000 states" (line 77)
  - "Zero safety violations across 100 consecutive runs"
  (line 93)
  - This specificity is excellent

- [ ] **Quarterly assessment** - Good accountability
  - Shows you've thought about project management
  - Revision criteria show you've thought about failure
  modes
  - This strengthens the proposal

---

## 5. Risks and Contingencies Section

### 5.1 Sentence-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 3-12** - Opening paragraph
  - Good overview structure
  - Line 9: "Each risk has associated indicators for early
  detection" - good framing
  - Line 11-12: "The staged project structure ensures..." -
  passive. Fix: "Our staged project structure ensures..."

- [ ] **Lines 14-24** - Computational tractability risk
statement
  - Clear problem statement
  - Lines 17-21: Long sentence (51 words) with complex
  structure
  - Consider breaking after "specification complexity" or
  "state"
  - Fix: "Reactive synthesis scales exponentially with
  specification complexity, which creates risk of
  intractable synthesis times. Temporal logic specifications
  from complete startup procedures may produce automata with
  thousands of states, requiring days or weeks of synthesis
  time. This would prevent demonstrating the complete
  methodology within project timelines."

- [ ] **Lines 26-35** - Indicators paragraph
  - Good concrete indicators
  - Parallel structure: "X would suggest Y", "X would
  indicate Y", etc.
  - Effective

- [ ] **Lines 37-45** - Contingency plan
  - Clear fallback
  - Specific scope reduction described
  - Line 42: "The research contribution would remain valid"
    - good positive framing
  - Line 44-45: "constraint rather than a failure" -
  excellent reframing

- [ ] **Lines 47-54** - Time-scale separation mitigation
  - Technical depth is good
  - Shows sophisticated understanding
  - Minor: Line 48: "can be treated quasi-steady" - may be
  jargon for some readers. Consider: "can be approximated as
  steady"

- [ ] **Lines 56-63** - Access to HPC resources
  - Good mention of available resources
  - Shows preparedness
  - Line 59: "high-performance computing resources" - first
  mention of CRC facility (it was in budget)

### 5.2 Discrete-Continuous Interface Section

- [ ] **Lines 65-79** - Problem statement
  - Clear explanation of fundamental challenge
  - Long sentences (lines 72-78 is 57 words)
  - Consider breaking: "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."

- [ ] **Lines 81-92** - Indicators
  - Parallel structure: "X would suggest Y", "X would
  indicate Y"
  - Good technical specificity
  - Line 84-85: "Boolean abstraction" appears twice (lines
  73 and 84) - be consistent with terminology

- [ ] **Lines 94-107** - Polytopic invariants contingency
  - Technical and specific
  - Good explanation of what polytopes are and why they help
  - Line 100: "inner-approximated" - good use of precise
  term, but consider whether definition needed
  - Lines 103-107: Shows you've already thought about this
  in your three-mode classification

- [ ] **Lines 109-119** - Mitigation strategies
  - "Design-for-verification" (line 113) is good concept
  - Control barrier functions mentioned again (callback to
  Research Approach)
  - Shows integrated thinking

### 5.3 Procedure Formalization Section

- [ ] **Lines 121-134** - Problem statement
  - Clear explanation of challenge
  - Good point about procedures written for humans with
  contextual understanding
  - Lines 131-134: Risk is framed positively - "not merely
  that formalization is difficult, but that current
  procedures fundamentally lack the precision required"

- [ ] **Lines 136-148** - Indicators
  - Good concrete indicators
  - Line 141-142: References to "operator judgment" in
  procedures - very specific and realistic
  - Line 145-148: "Domain experts unable to provide crisp
  answers" - excellent indicator

- [ ] **Lines 150-163** - Contingency as contribution
  - Excellent reframing: documentation of gaps is itself
  valuable
  - "Taxonomy of formalization barriers" (line 152) - good
  concept
  - Lines 156-160: Shifts from "here's a controller" to
  "here's what's needed"—good pivot
  - This contingency is particularly well-developed

- [ ] **Lines 165-177** - Mitigation strategies
  - Early engagement with domain experts
  - Cross-design comparison
  - Both are good strategies showing preparedness

### 5.4 Hardware-in-Loop Integration Section

- [ ] **Lines 179-190** - Problem statement
  - Clear technical challenges listed
  - Specific timing requirements mentioned (10-100 Hz)
  - Good detail level

- [ ] **Lines 192-203** - Indicators
  - Specific technical indicators (dropouts, buffer
  overruns, computational limits)
  - Good progression from communication → computation →
  timing

- [ ] **Lines 205-218** - Software-in-loop contingency
  - Good fallback that maintains TRL 4
  - Explains why this still demonstrates value
  - Line 214-217: "research contribution remains intact" -
  good positive framing
  - Note this maintains TRL 4 not TRL 5 (appropriate
  scoping)

- [ ] **Lines 220-232** - Mitigation strategies
  - ARCADE prior success mentioned
  - Early testing recommended
  - Ovation flexibility noted
  - All show preparedness

### 5.5 Risks Section - Paragraph-Level Issues

- [ ] **Four main subsections** - Well-balanced structure
  - Each has: (1) problem statement, (2) indicators, (3)
  contingency, (4) mitigation
  - Parallel structure is effective
  - Lengths: Computational (48 lines), Discrete-Continuous
  (58 lines), Procedure (58 lines), HIL (54 lines)
  - Fairly balanced

- [ ] **Opening paragraph** - Could be tighter
  - Lines 3-12: Sets up structure
  - Could potentially be combined with subsequent topic
  sentences
  - But current structure works

### 5.6 Risks Section - Content Issues

- [ ] **Risk selection** - Comprehensive
  - Four major risks cover computational, theoretical,
  practical/procedural, and implementation
  - Good coverage of different risk categories

- [ ] **Contingency quality** - Excellent
  - Each contingency preserves value
  - Scope reductions are reasonable
  - Positive framing ("contribution" not "failure")

- [ ] **Indicators specificity** - Very good
  - Concrete, measurable indicators
  - Early warning focus
  - This shows project management maturity

- [ ] **Balance of subsections** - Good
  - Roughly equal length
  - But: is length proportional to actual risk magnitude?
  - Discrete-continuous interface seems most fundamental,
  but doesn't get more space
  - Consider: Does space allocation reflect importance, or
  just complexity of explanation?

---

## 6. Broader Impacts Section

### 6.1 Sentence-Level Issues

- [ ] **Lines 3-10** - Opening paragraph
  - Good hook: AI datacenters renewing SMR interest
  - Clear problem setup
  - Line 8-9: "However, the economics of nuclear power
  deployment at this scale demand careful attention to
  operating costs" - somewhat cautious phrasing
  - Consider: "However, nuclear power economics depend
  critically on reducing operating costs"

- [ ] **Lines 12-23** - Economic statistics paragraph
  - Excellent use of specific numbers
  - $88.24/MWh, 1,050 TWh, $92B annually, 23-30% for O&M
  - This level of specificity is persuasive
  - Minor: Long sentences (lines 18-23 is 54 words)
  - Consider breaking after "$92 billion": "...cost of power
  generation would exceed $92 billion. Within this figure,
  operations and maintenance represents..."

- [ ] **Lines 25-37** - How research addresses costs
  - Clear connection: autonomous control → reduced staffing
  → lower O&M
  - Good explanation of staffing challenge for SMRs
  - Lines 30-33: Long sentence (48 words) could be broken

- [ ] **Lines 38-50** - Correct-by-construction importance
  - Good argument for why formal methods matter
  - Explains what automation can/can't do (routine vs.
  off-normal)
  - Line 49-50: "much cheaper to operate" - consider whether
  more precise language available

- [ ] **Lines 52-62** - SMR deployment paragraph
  - Good connection: NRC certification documents → FRET →
  synthesis
  - "Infrastructure of requirements and specifications is
  already complete as part of licensing process" (lines
  59-61) - this is a key insight and could be more prominent

- [ ] **Lines 64-74** - Generalization paragraph
  - Good broader impact: methodology generalizes
  - Lists other domains (chemical, aerospace,
  transportation)
  - Lines 71-74: Long final sentence (43 words) - consider
  breaking

### 6.2 Paragraph-Level Issues

- [ ] **Section length** - At 75 lines, this is the briefest
technical section
  - Issue: Given that economic motivation is central to
  SMRs, this could be expanded
  - Missed opportunities: workforce development, educational
  impacts, equity considerations

- [ ] **Paragraph structure** - Generally good
  - Seven paragraphs covering: (1) context, (2) economics,
  (3) how research helps, (4) why formal methods, (5) SMR
  fit, (6) generalization
  - Logical flow

### 6.3 Broader Impacts - Content Issues

- [ ] **Economic analysis** - Excellent
  - Specific numbers
  - Clear chain: electricity cost → total demand → O&M costs
  - This is persuasive

- [ ] **Missing elements** - Several
  - **Workforce/educational impacts**: Training engineers in
  formal methods, developing curriculum, broader
  CS-engineering integration
  - **Equity considerations**: Clean energy access,
  distributed generation benefits
  - **International implications**: Methodology could help
  other countries deploy SMRs
  - **Environmental justice**: How does autonomous control
  affect siting near communities?
  - Not all needed, but one or two would strengthen section

- [ ] **Generalization** - Good but brief
  - Lists domains (chemical, aerospace, transportation)
  - Could expand slightly: What specific applications?
  Pipeline safety? Aircraft control? Autonomous vehicles?

---

## 7. Budget Section (Brief Review)

As requested, this section receives lighter treatment
focusing on major issues only.

### 7.1 Major Issues

- [ ] **Line 73** - Typo
  - "t ranslation" should be "translation"

- [ ] **Table formatting** - Appears correct
  - Budget table uses booktabs style (good)
  - Numbers align properly
  - Categories are clear

- [ ] **High-performance workstation** - Consider upgrade
path
  - Year 1: $3,500 for workstation
  - Years 2-3: No upgrades budgeted
  - Issue: As synthesis scales up, might need more compute
  - Consider: Adding small line item for upgrades/expansion
  in Years 2-3?

- [ ] **Software note (lines 191-197)** - Good
  - Explicitly states all software is free/licensed
  - ARCADE through partnership
  - This prevents questions

- [ ] **In-kind contributions (lines 250-277)** -
Well-documented
  - Emerson partnership valued
  - University contributions noted
  - Total estimated at $20,000+
  - Good to document this explicitly

### 7.2 Budget Section - Overall Assessment

- Budget is comprehensive, well-justified, and appropriate
- Fringe benefit rates are clearly stated
- Travel budget is reasonable
- No major concerns

---

## 8. Schedule Section (Brief Review)

As requested, this section receives lighter treatment
focusing on major issues only.

### 8.1 Major Issues

- [ ] **Line 73** - Spacing issue
  - "t ranslation methodology" has incorrect space
  - Should be "translation methodology"

- [ ] **Gantt chart** - Appears well-structured
  - Overlapping tasks shown appropriately
  - Milestones marked clearly
  - Publications timeline shown

- [ ] **Publication strategy (lines 115-141)** - Excellent
  - Explains venue choices
  - NPIC&HMIT for nuclear community
  - IEEE TAC for control theory community
  - Rationale for each is clear
  - Builds on prior success (best student paper)

### 8.2 Schedule Section - Overall Assessment

- 24-month timeline is ambitious but realistic
- Six trimesters for dissertation is reasonable
- Milestone structure aligns with TRL progression
- No major concerns

---

## 9. Big Picture Issues

### 9.1 Cross-Cutting Issues

- [ ] **Three-mode classification** - Novel contribution
underemphasized
  - Location: Research Approach, lines 178-208
  - Issue: This stabilizing/transitory/expulsory framework
  appears to be novel, but is presented as routine
  categorization
  - Impact: You may not be getting credit for this
  innovation
  - Fix: Explicitly state novelty: "We propose a three-mode
  classification for hybrid control design. To our
  knowledge, this systematic taxonomy has not previously
  been applied to hybrid control synthesis."
  - Cross-reference: This should be mentioned in Goals
  section as one of the methodological contributions

- [ ] **Discrete-continuous interface verification** - Key
contribution
  - Location: Research Approach subsection 3
  - Issue: The unified verification across
  discrete-continuous interface is your main contribution,
  but this isn't always explicit
  - Impact: Reviewers may not fully appreciate novelty
  - Fix: In Goals section, explicitly state: "The key
  innovation is unified verification across the
  discrete-continuous interface—ensuring both switching
  logic and continuous dynamics are provably correct."

- [ ] **SmAHTR introduction timing** - Appears abruptly
  - Location: First mentioned in Goals (line 92), detailed
  in Research Approach (line 253)
  - Issue: SmAHTR suddenly appears as the demonstration case
  without build-up
  - Fix: Introduce SmAHTR earlier, perhaps in Goals section:
  "We will demonstrate this methodology by developing an
  autonomous startup controller for a Small Modular Advanced
  High Temperature Reactor (SmAHTR), transitioning from cold
  shutdown through criticality to full power operation."

### 9.2 Consistency Issues

- [ ] **Terminology consistency** - Generally good
  - "Correct by construction" vs. "provably correct" - used
  somewhat interchangeably
  - "Hybrid automata" vs. "discrete automata" vs. "finite
  state automata" - generally clear from context
  - "Reachability analysis" - consistent usage
  - No major inconsistencies

- [ ] **Notation consistency** - Good
  - $f(\cdot)$ and $\nu(\cdot)$ introduced clearly
  - Temporal logic operators ($G$, $X$, $U$, $F$) explained
  when introduced
  - Mathematical notation is consistent

- [ ] **Section cross-references** - Could be stronger
  - SOTA identifies gaps → Research Approach should
  explicitly reference these
  - Current: connections are implicit
  - Fix: In Research Approach opening, add: "This approach
  addresses the three limitations identified in Section 2:
  procedures lacking formal verification, current practice
  treating continuous and discrete separately, and HARDENS
  verifying discrete logic without continuous dynamics."

### 9.3 Argument Flow

- [ ] **Problem → Solution arc** - Clear and strong
  - Problem: Operators make errors (SOTA human factors
  section)
  - Gap: No formal verification of procedures or hybrid
  behavior (SOTA limitations)
  - Solution: Hybrid control synthesis with discrete +
  continuous verification (Research Approach)
  - Evidence: TRL progression demonstrates feasibility
  (Metrics)
  - Risks addressed: Comprehensive contingencies (Risks)
  - Impact: Economic viability of SMRs (Broader Impacts)
  - This structure is excellent

- [ ] **"So what" connections** - Could be more explicit
  - Issue: Sometimes you present information without
  explicitly stating why it matters
  - Examples:
    - After Goals section: Add "If successful, this
    enables..."
    - Between SOTA and Research Approach: Add "These gaps
    create an urgent research opportunity"
    - After Metrics section: Add "Achieving TRL 5 would
    provide a clear path to industrial adoption"

- [ ] **Callbacks and forward references** - Could be
stronger
  - Research Approach could reference specific SOTA
  limitations by name
  - Metrics could reference specific risks
  - Broader Impacts could callback to human factors
  statistics from SOTA

### 9.4 Missing Elements

- [ ] **Cybersecurity** - Not mentioned
  - Issue: For autonomous nuclear control, cybersecurity is
  critical
  - Impact: Reviewers may wonder why this isn't addressed
  - Fix: Add brief paragraph (perhaps in Risks section or
  Research Approach) on security verification
  - Could mention: "While cybersecurity verification is
  beyond the scope of this phase, the formal methods
  infrastructure we develop provides a foundation for
  subsequent security verification using techniques like
  information flow analysis and secure compilation."

- [ ] **Regulatory path** - Mentioned but not detailed
  - Issue: You mention NRC requirements but don't describe
  approval process
  - Impact: May seem naive about regulatory challenges
  - Fix: Add paragraph in Broader Impacts discussing
  regulatory pathway: "NRC Standard Review Plan provides
  pathways for digital I&C approval (NUREG-0800, Chapter 7).
  The formal verification artifacts we produce—including
  provable correctness claims, traceability from
  requirements to implementation, and systematic testing
  evidence—align with NRC expectations for high-assurance
  systems. While full regulatory approval is beyond this
  research scope, our methodology produces the documentation
  foundation NRC requires."

- [ ] **ML/AI alternatives** - Not discussed
  - Issue: Machine learning for control is prominent. Why
  not use ML?
  - Impact: Reviewers may wonder if you've considered
  alternatives
  - Fix: Add brief paragraph early in Research Approach:
  "Machine learning approaches to autonomous control have
  received significant attention. However, neural network
  controllers are fundamentally black-box systems that
  cannot provide the mathematical safety guarantees required
  for nuclear applications. Recent work on verified neural
  networks shows promise, but the state of the art remains
  far from the assurance levels nuclear safety demands.
  Formal methods provide the only currently viable path to
  provable correctness for safety-critical autonomous
  control."

### 9.5 Strengths to Maintain

- [ ] **Specific examples** - Excellent throughout
  - TMI accident narrative
  - SCRAM requirement translation
  - HARDENS project detail
  - SmAHTR demonstration
  - These make the proposal concrete and believable

- [ ] **Statistical evidence** - Very strong
  - 70-80% human error rate
  - Economic projections ($92B annually)
  - HEP rates (0.001-0.01 → 0.1-1.0)
  - Specific numbers are persuasive

- [ ] **Technical depth** - Appropriate level
  - Enough detail to demonstrate expertise
  - Not so much that non-experts are lost
  - Good balance for mixed audience

- [ ] **Risk analysis** - Exceptionally thorough
  - Four major risks identified
  - Concrete indicators
  - Viable contingencies
  - Positive framing
  - This is a model for risk sections

---

## Summary Statistics

**Total issues documented**: 150+

**By level**:
- Sentence-level: ~70 issues
- Paragraph-level: ~40 issues
- Content/organization: ~40 issues

**By section**:
- Goals and Outcomes: 18 issues
- State of the Art: 45 issues (longest section, most issues)
- Research Approach: 40 issues
- Metrics of Success: 12 issues
- Risks and Contingencies: 20 issues
- Broader Impacts: 10 issues
- Budget: 3 issues (light review)
- Schedule: 3 issues (light review)
- Big Picture: 10 issues

**Priority levels** (estimated):
- HIGH impact: ~15 issues (major organization, missing
content, key contributions underemphasized)
- MEDIUM impact: ~60 issues (sentence-level patterns,
paragraph structure, clarity)
- LOW impact: ~75 issues (minor wording, polish,
consistency)

---

## Revision Strategy Recommendation

1. **Start with Big Picture issues** (Section 9) - Ensure
novel contributions are highlighted
2. **Address Priority Issues 1-5** from Executive Summary
3. **Work section-by-section** using this detailed document
4. **Apply patterns** from Executive Summary to similar
cases
5. **Final consistency pass** - Terminology,
cross-references, formatting

Tpkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkhe proposal has strong technical content and solid
structure. These revisions will enhance clarity, emphasize
your contributions, and strengthen your argument. Good
luck!