DynamisLab/docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_09_EXPERIMENT.md

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.