Domain Applications

The same four-channel architecture, mapped onto three real domains beyond education. Real channel mappings, not renamed variables — each domain surfaces a genuine architectural insight that only shows up once you actually try the transfer, not just claim it works.

PurposeShow the domain-independence claim concretely — how S/D/I/C map onto Industrial, Athletic, and Co-Pilot contexts — without publishing full build-level specifications.

StatusExploratory — architectural specifications (v0.1, first draft), not yet implemented or tested systems. Distinct from the already-tested Test 4 result below, which is real.

Built fromReal specification drafts, May 2026

Depends onThe Proof, Definition 2.1-2.2

Superseded by—

EvidenceReal mapping tables below, drawn directly from source specs, not paraphrased.

The already-tested claim this connects to

Test 4 instantiated the NCFCA architecture across four structurally different domains and found a 1.8–1.9% false positive rate at a fixed threshold setting across all of them — without retuning per domain. That's real, already-tested evidence that the architecture's baseline behavior doesn't depend on domain semantics. The mappings below are the current specification work extending that same architecture into three further domains — real design work, not yet run through the same empirical validation Test 4 used.

The pattern, side by side

Education (baseline)	Industrial	Athletic	Co-Pilot
Dynamic Learning Profile (DLP)	Dynamic Operator Profile — skill floor per equipment type, response time baseline	Dynamic Athlete Profile — physiological capacity floor, movement schema mastery	Dynamic Driver Profile — route schema mastery, reaction time baseline per scenario
Student Context Profile (SCP)	Environment Context Profile — cabin temp, wind speed, shift length, load weight	Environmental Athlete Profile — altitude, humidity, sleep debt, travel load	Vehicle & Environment Profile — weather, traffic density, road type, autonomy level
Schema floor	Operator skill floor — highest equipment state managed reliably under degraded conditions	Capacity floor — highest intensity sustained with maintained form at current state	Driver readiness floor — minimum confirmed competence on this road type, credential-independent
Wrong-schema flag	Bad habit pattern — systematic control error producing near-misses	Movement compensation pattern — biomechanical error producing injury risk	Scenario schema gap — a scenario type the driver hasn't encountered enough to have a reliable response
Circuit breaker (CEP)	Joystick jitter, reaction-time spike, micro-correction frequency → hard stop before incident	3% form-latency degradation from session baseline → session modification before injury	Reaction time >200ms above baseline delta → autonomous hold, control doesn't transfer

The real insight in each domain — not just the mapping

Industrial — precursor state, not output failure. Standard industrial telemetry tracks output failures: did the vehicle deviate, did the load swing, did speed exceed the limit. By the time an output failure is detected, the incident has already begun. The architecture instead tracks the operator's internal state that precedes output failure — joystick jitter precedes loss of control, reaction-time degradation precedes failure to respond to load swing. The circuit breaker fires on the precursor, not the consequence.

Athletic — state versus capacity are different profiles, updated independently. Standard fitness tracking conflates current state with baseline capacity. An athlete who performs poorly in altitude after transatlantic travel isn't a lower-capacity athlete — they're a high-capacity athlete in a degraded state. Writing that session's data back into their baseline would corrupt the profile. The environmental profile captures state modifiers; the athlete profile captures baseline capacity. They're queried together but updated independently — a degraded-state session updates recovery-needed parameters, not the capacity floor, unless the pattern repeats across multiple sessions under multiple conditions.

Co-Pilot — the autonomy question is backwards in current systems. Current Level 3 autonomous systems issue control-transfer requests based on the vehicle's own capability limits — it detects a scenario it can't handle and asks the human to take over. The actual relevant question isn't whether the vehicle can handle the scenario. It's whether the human can handle it, right now, given their current cognitive state — not their credential, not their theoretical baseline. Control shouldn't transfer to a driver who can't receive it.

Two domains not detailed here

Test 4's real, already-published result also covers substance use disorder recovery. A Recovery Engine specification exists — it's explicitly marked for clinical review before any deployment and isn't detailed on this page. A Fitness Engine specification also exists, separately marked the same way. Both are real, substantial work; neither is published here, the same standard held for every other clinically-adjacent document on this site.