docs(jfm): establish traceable manuscript planning baseline

Track the research dossiers, section freezes, supporting manuscript materials, and round-aware agent controls so future drafting decisions can be reviewed across both repository mirrors.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_09_EXPERIMENT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+# Round 4 style research — qualitative experiment
+
+**Status:** `researching` (first-pass style memo; not manuscript prose or a freeze). **Owner:** experiment style lane; Frank retains authorship. External literature supplies style/context only and establishes no internal apparatus, result, artifact or priority.
+
+## 1. Question and bounded recommendation
+
+**Question.** How should a JFM-facing qualitative experiment move from apparatus to observation while preserving provenance and preventing computational evidence from becoming experimental validation?
+
+**Recommendation.** Use **purpose/boundary → apparatus, actuation and acquisition contract → named visual comparison → immediate measurement limit → next quantitative test**. A traceable image may support only a visible named-condition observation or bounded physical feasibility. It cannot inherit field, force, mechanism or validation language from computation. Omit media if provenance fails. Use a supplementary movie only when motion is essential and trial linkage is complete.
+
+## 2. Coverage ledger
+
+| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence state/reason |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `read` | Round-4 `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md`, `00_QUALITY_GATE.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `README.md` | Claim, ownership and disposition controls | Read directly; not independently verified or artifact-audited. |
+| `read` | Round-4 `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | Gate-A experiment-display classification, ownership, dependencies and fallbacks | Read directly; inventory entry reconciled below; no panel, source media or artifact independently verified or audited. |
+| `read` | Round-2 `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md`, `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Experiment ceiling and section cadence | Full reports read; not independent verification. |
+| `read` | Round-3 `09_EXPERIMENT_AUTHOR_INTERFACE.md`, `00_MODULE_INTERFACE_LEDGER.md`, `11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Author ownership, provenance gate and fallback | Full reports read; internal experiment remains author-described and unaudited. |
+| `read` | Four exact JFM papers listed in §3 | Closest qualitative visualization/control precedents | Targeted `full-PDF` paper-level read of metadata, apparatus, acquisition, visual results, captions and supplement practice; no data audit or replication. |
+| `mapped` | Supplementary-movie records linked by Bhattacharyya et al. and Khan et al. | Motion-dependent reporting precedent | Identities and links mapped; movies not watched or artifact-audited. |
+| `mapped` | Internal raw-media/provenance slots named by M09 | Defines possible gates | Located through M09 only; mapping establishes no fact. |
+| `not-covered` | Exhaustive JFM facility literature; sentence coding of all captions; new experiment/image/force/PIV analysis | Outside bounded style task | No general frequency or internal claim inferred. |
+| `external-inaccessible` | Hidden/unexposed internal media, trial logs, calibration, synchronization and permissions | Needed for panel/observation promotion | Provenance unresolved; no claim inferred. |
+
+All requested controls were read. `Read` is not independently verified; no literature data or internal artifact was audited.
+
+## 3. Exact literature identities
+
+1. **Soumarup Bhattacharyya, Izhar Hussain Khan, Shivam Verma, Sanjay Kumar & Kamal Poddar**, “Experimental investigation of three-dimensional modes in the wake of a rotationally oscillating cylinder”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **950**, A10 (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2022.792`, `full-PDF`. Closest single rotating-cylinder example: qualitative hydrogen-bubble/LIF, phase selection, separate PIV/hot-wire, validation and movies.
+2. **Izhar Hussain Khan, Puja Sunil, Soumarup Bhattacharyya, Rahul Yadav, Kamal Poddar & Sanjay Kumar**, “Flow past two rotationally oscillating cylinders”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **969**, A16 (2023), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2023.549`, `full-PDF`. Closest geometry/actuation family: visual-first sequence, distinct PIV/force acquisition and extensive movie use.
+3. **Lukasz Klotz, Karol Bukowski & Konrad Gumowski**, “Influence of porous material on the flow behind a backward-facing step: experimental study”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **998**, A31 (2024), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.639`, `full-PDF`. Explicitly qualitative dye entry followed by a separate quantitative PIV campaign.
+4. **Yu Zhou, Dewei Fan, Bingfu Zhang, Ruiying Li & Bernd R. Noack**, “Artificial intelligence control of a turbulent jet”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **897**, A27 (2020), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.392`, `full-PDF`. Machine-learning-control experiment in which facility/actuator/sensor provenance precedes performance and visualization remains subordinate to quantitative evidence.
+
+## 4. Observed JFM practice
+
+These are observations from this four-paper sample, not universal JFM rules.
+
+### Apparatus-to-observation sequence
+
+- Papers fix the question, then schematic/facility/geometry, actuation, acquisition, and only then observation. Hardware is organized by evidentiary function, not as a build inventory.
+- Visualization has its own contract: tracer, illumination, camera/view, plane/field of view, sampling, phase/frame choice and processing.
+- Comparator structure precedes interpretation. Khan et al. vary declared parameters while stating held conditions; Klotz et al. pair reference and modified cases.
+- Different acquisitions are disclosed. Bhattacharyya et al. call PIV and visualization different realizations under the same conditions; Klotz et al. say visualization and PIV came from different runs. “Same conditions” is not treated as synchronized or paired evidence.
+
+### Provenance and qualitative wording
+
+- Provenance is distributed deliberately: methods carry facility/acquisition/processing; captions carry exact condition, view, phase/scaling and annotations.
+- Intrusive or consequential choices are visible. Bhattacharyya et al. discuss visualization-wire placement and possible wake modification; Klotz et al. disclose dye delivery and background-intensity subtraction.
+- Klotz et al. explicitly call dye panels qualitative and use `illustrate`. Visual prose names morphology—streaklines, rows, coherence, symmetry, deflection, repetition—under a condition, without automatically converting appearance into velocity or force.
+- Stronger conclusions follow distinct diagnostics: image analysis, hot-wire, PIV, spectra or force. Strong words used in those papers are not transferable to a qualitative-only demonstration.
+
+### Quantitative-validation boundary
+
+- Adjacent visual and quantitative evidence remains acquisition-specific: camera, tracer, plane, run, phase and processing differences are stated.
+- Visual observations organize subsequent measurements but do not substitute for them.
+- Visual morphology becomes quantitative only after an estimator is defined. Bhattacharyya et al. specify sampled line, pixel intensity and spectral procedure, and note position dependencies.
+- Quantitative uncertainty belongs to the relevant calibrated instrument/estimator, not retroactively to a dye image.
+
+### Captions, supplement and omission
+
+- Effective captions identify comparison variables and fixed conditions, view/plane, flow direction, phase/averaging state, scaling/extent and annotations. They distinguish visualization from PIV and instantaneous from averaged fields.
+- Acquisition hardware and algorithms stay in Methods unless essential to reading a panel; comparator, condition, view and phase cannot be omitted from the caption.
+- Bhattacharyya et al. and Khan et al. use movies for cycle evolution, repetition, alternation or coalescence that a still cannot establish. The interpretive sentence points to a named movie.
+- Main figures select representative comparisons/maps rather than every condition. A movie supplements a traceable observation; it does not repair an unidentified still.
+- Klotz et al. retain qualitative plates because they provide the visual entry to later PIV. Zhou et al. subordinate visualization when quantitative performance and fields already carry the argument.
+
+## 5. Project recommendation from observed practice
+
+### Paragraph jobs
+
+1. **Purpose/boundary:** why physical deployment is shown; explicitly qualitative and open-loop. Import no computational values or interpretation.
+2. **Apparatus/acquisition:** facility/geometry, command/sign, trial/reference roles, camera/view/scale/timing, tracer and synchronization status. Avoid construction history and brands unless evidence-determining.
+3. **Observation:** one comparator pair at a time; visible morphology, trial/media identity, frame-selection and repeat status. Use past tense and bounded verbs: `appeared`, `was visibly altered`, `a qualitative change was observed`.
+4. **Limit/next test:** immediately state no quantitative field/force/PIV or closed-loop validation; name the acquisition needed to raise the ceiling.
+
+Two paragraphs may combine 1–2 and 3–4. A one-paragraph image anecdote is not ready.
+
+| Dimension | Recommendation | Safe fallback |
+|---|---|---|
+| Apparatus | Functional schematic or compact facility → actuation → acquisition prose | Omit schematic if it becomes a hardware diary. |
+| Observation | One visual claim per named comparator; trial, view and selection rule local | Weakest wording or omission if repeat/selection is unknown. |
+| Provenance | Bind raw file, trial, condition, timing/scale, processing, permission and repeats | Omit; never reconstruct from memory/derivative plots. |
+| Wording | Morphology/appearance only; distinguish visible temporal change from measured frequency | No frequency without timing, extraction and uncertainty. |
+| Quantitative boundary | Keep computational/experimental chains separate; no overlay/shared metric/validation without same-plant registration and uncertainty | Feasibility only. |
+| Caption | Condition/role, view, frame/window, scale/calibration status, processing, trial and qualitative ceiling | Move extended provenance to supplement, not comparator/ceiling. |
+| Supplement | Named movie only when motion matters; include provenance index | Omit unlinked movie. Supplement does not lower standards. |
+| Omission | Keep media only if it changes the argument beyond hardware existence | Text-only, supplement-only or total omission. |
+
+**Imports:** fixed vocabulary and qualitative/open-loop/provenance-gated boundary only. **Experiment owns:** apparatus/media provenance, trial identity, observation, local confounds, panel gate and next measurement. **Exports:** one conditional feasibility statement and one decisive measurement boundary. **Delete here:** computational values, SR/CCD, field metrics and mechanistic synthesis. **Delete elsewhere:** apparatus checklist/provenance detail; conclusion keeps only the boundary. **Bridge:** deployment does not alter computational evidence; it identifies the next synchronized/calibrated/repeated test.
+
+## 6. Claim ceiling and near-collision audit
+
+**Green:** `qualitative`, `open-loop`, `author-described`, `provenance-gated`, `feasibility`; `selected media appear to show [visible morphology] under the named trial/comparator` after provenance passes.
+
+**Amber:** `is consistent with qualitative wake modification under the named condition`; `supports a bounded physical-deployability reading`; `motivates synchronized, calibrated and repeated measurement`. No computational mechanism or policy-validity import.
+
+**Red without new evidence:** `experimentally validates`, `confirms CFD`, field matching, force reduction, closed-loop control, policy validation, measured frequency from unaudited video, causation/mechanism, restoration, stability, optimality, robustness/generality, or quantitative efficacy/uncertainty from appearance.
+
+| Pair | Check | Classification / consequence |
+|---|---|---|
+| Dye/streakline image vs computational field | Different plant/acquisition; intensity/morphology is not velocity; no common roles, coordinates, mask, weighting or window | `different estimand`; no overlay, arithmetic, agreement, replication or validation. |
+| Visible shedding change vs temporal metric | Timing, extraction, trial role and window unbound | `different estimand`; visible temporal change only, no frequency/DTW equivalence. |
+| Open-loop physical actuation vs closed-loop computation | Commanded/realized motion, sensing and feedback differ | `related diagnostic` at most; no policy validation. |
+| Apparatus schematic vs result image | Configuration documentation vs observation | `different estimand`; schematic never proves outcome. |
+
+## 7. Display contracts and readiness
+
+| Display | Owner/job/source | Caption ceiling | Status/fallback |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Apparatus/signal schematic | Experiment; document facility, geometry, open-loop command/media path from author record | Context only; no calibration, accuracy or result | `author-supply-gated`; prose fallback. |
+| Qualitative comparator plate | Experiment; candidate vehicle for one Frank-authored, named visible observation only after raw traceable minimally processed media pass the gate | Trial/comparator, view, timing/phase, scale, processing, repeats and qualitative ceiling; no field/force claim | `author-supply-gated`; currently no observation is promoted and no panel is ready. Frank may supply a provenance-passing bounded observation and panel; otherwise use a prose boundary or omit (supplement-only media remain equally gated). |
+| Supplementary movie | Experiment; candidate support for temporal evolution that a still cannot establish | Qualitative motion only; trial/condition/timing identified; no measured frequency or repeatability claim without a declared estimator and audit | `author-supply-gated`; Frank-supplied provenance must pass before use; otherwise use a gated still, bounded prose, or omission. |
+| Provenance index | Experiment/supplement; bind media and acquisition from Frank's records | Documentation, not efficacy and not an observation | `author-supply-gated`; Frank supplies the binding record; otherwise use only a bounded caption/data note for retained gated media, or omit media. |
+| Force/PIV/registered-CFD panel | Not owned in qualitative pass | Requires independent quantitative contract | `blocked`; omit. |
+
+**Inventory reconciliation.** Round-4 `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` classifies the experiment display family as `author-supply-gated`: qualitative open-loop apparatus and candidate steady/Illusion dye media require Frank's conditions, action/sign, trial identity, raw media, scale/frame rate, processing, repeats and permissions. This memo does not treat the inventory wording as evidence that either dye observation exists or is publishable. The apparatus/signal schematic, comparator plate, supplementary movie and provenance index therefore remain `author-supply-gated`; the force/PIV/registered-CFD panel is `blocked`. Each row above states its prose or omission fallback. Frank retains authorship of any apparatus account, observation and media selection. The only ceiling is qualitative, open-loop and provenance-gated; no observation is promoted here and no display provides quantitative validation.
+
+No experiment equation is recommended; introducing one here would imply an unsupported quantitative experimental estimand. Any quantitative experiment equation or main-text results table is `blocked` absent a separately authorized, calibrated estimator and evidence contract, with prose/omission as fallback. Text-interface readiness does not imply any panel, movie, permission or caption is artifact-ready.
+
+## 8. Anti-patterns
+
+Hardware diary; aesthetic image without trial/comparator/selection provenance; “with/without control” caption lacking condition/view/timing; dye as velocity/vorticity/force; unregistered CFD overlay; “same conditions” as simultaneous; unlinked movie as proof; quantitative verbs without estimator/uncertainty; single-cause background attribution without controls; open-loop playback as policy validation; limitation delayed to conclusion; supplement used to relax provenance; retaining an untraceable panel merely to lengthen the section.
+
+## 9. Decisions, deferrals and blockers
+
+**Evidence-governed:** qualitative/open-loop/provenance-gated ceiling; no quantitative or causal ownership; missing provenance blocks panel promotion, not this style interface.
+
+**Author choices:** (1) retain subsection only if provenance supports a named observation, otherwise a brief limit/outlook sentence; (2) main-text still, movie or no media—safe default omit; (3) schematic only if more efficient than prose—safe default prose; (4) Frank supplies exact observation after raw-media review—safe default no sentence yet.
+
+No control conflict was found. External papers often move from visualization to PIV/force/spectra; only their reporting discipline transfers when those measurements are absent. Raw-media, apparatus, synchronization, calibration, repeatability and permission audits are deferred to author supply.
+
+**Blockers to media/observation:** missing raw identity, trial/comparator, condition, view/timing/scale, processing, selection/repeats or permission. **Blocker to quantitative wording:** no synchronized calibrated force/PIV or declared image estimator with uncertainty. These do not block the style memo.
+
+## 10. Disposition and validation
+
+**Disposition:** `researching`. Recommendation is decision-ready, but a first pass cannot self-freeze. Coordinator second audit is required; all candidate qualitative experiment displays remain `author-supply-gated`, while the quantitative force/PIV/registered-CFD panel remains `blocked`.
+
+Validated: exact requested output only; required R4/R2/R3 controls and Round-4 `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` read; every experiment display reconciled as `author-supply-gated` or `blocked` with prose/omission fallback; Frank authorship preserved; qualitative open-loop provenance-gated ceiling preserved; no observation promoted; four close JFM full-PDF records retain exact identities/DOIs/read levels; observed practice remains separated from recommendation; no internal numbers, artifacts, quantitative validation or new scientific claims; text/artifact readiness remains separate.