Apply first round of edits with strikethrough/red markup

1-goals-and-outcomes/research-statement.tex

@@ -9,13 +9,13 @@ Control Systems. Maybe removal of `formal'?}
 Nuclear power relies on extensively trained operators who follow detailed
 written procedures to manage reactor control.\dasinline{Why is there any
 hyphenation at all? Why not full justification?} Based on these procedures and
-operators' interpretation of plant conditions, operators make critical decisions
+\oldt{operators'} \newt{their} interpretation of plant conditions, \oldt{operators} \newt{they} make critical decisions
 about when to switch between control objectives.
 \splitinline{Consider: ``operators'' appears 3x in two sentences. Maybe: 
 ``Based on these procedures and their interpretation of plant conditions, 
 they make critical decisions...''}
 % Gap
-But, reliance on human operators has created an economic challenge for
+\oldt{But, reliance} \newt{This reliance} on human operators has created an economic challenge for
 next-generation nuclear power plants.
 \splitinline{``But, reliance'' — the comma after ``But'' is unusual. Either 
 drop it or restructure: ``However, this reliance...'' or ``This reliance, 
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ however, has created...''}
 Right to the topic.}
 Small modular reactors face significantly higher per-megawatt staffing costs 
 than conventional 
-plants.\dasinline{Obvious but source required.} Autonomous control systems are
-needed that can safely manage complex 
+plants.\dasinline{Obvious but source required.} Autonomous control systems \oldt{are
+needed that can} \newt{must} safely manage complex 
 operational sequences with the same assurance as human-operated systems, but 
 without constant supervision.
 \splitinline{``are needed that can'' --- passive. Try: ``Autonomous control 
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ system.\dasinline{Where did this come from? Needs context.}
 stages, then a new paragraph for the compositional verification point and 
 Emerson demo.}
 % Pay-off
-This approach will demonstrate autonomous control can be used for complex
+This approach \oldt{will demonstrate autonomous control can be used for} \newt{enables autonomous management of} complex
 nuclear power operations while maintaining safety 
 guarantees.
 \splitinline{``can be used for'' — weak. Try: ``...will demonstrate that 
@@ -114,10 +114,10 @@ If this research is successful, we will be able to do the following:
     % Strategy
     We will implement this methodology on a small modular reactor simulation
     using industry-standard control hardware.     % Outcome
-    Control engineers will be able to implement high-assurance autonomous
+    Control engineers will be able to \oldt{implement high-assurance autonomous
     controls on industrial platforms they already use, enabling users to
     achieve autonomy without retraining costs or developing new 
-    equipment.\splitnote{Strong industrial grounding --- the ``platforms they 
+    equipment.} \newt{achieve autonomy without retraining costs or developing new equipment by implementing high-assurance autonomous controls on industrial platforms they already use.}\splitnote{Strong industrial grounding --- the ``platforms they 
     already use'' point is compelling for 
     adoption.}\dasinline{Flip the clauses. Put retraining
     and new equipment before the comma, end with building

3-research-approach/approach.tex

@@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ continuous components. This section describes the continuous control modes that
 execute within each discrete state, and how we verify that they satisfy the
 requirements imposed by the discrete layer. It is important to clarify the scope
 of this methodology with respect to continuous controller design. This work
-\dasinline{Verb tense: ``will verify''.}verifies continuous controllers; it does not synthesize them. The distinction
+\dasinline{Verb tense: ``will verify''.}\oldt{verifies} \newt{will verify} continuous controllers; it does not synthesize them. The distinction
 parallels model checking in software verification: model checking does not tell
 engineers how to write correct software, but it verifies whether a given
 implementation satisfies its specification. Similarly, we assume that continuous