Request to Measure (RTM) Research Program

Program Overview & Mission

The UCMS Request to Measure (RTM) Research Program invites facility managers, national laboratories, and academic institutions to collaborate on non-invasive, multi-domain system characterization.

Using proprietary internal operators, UCMS evaluates stress-event coherence, operational recoverability, and system health from raw structural, energy, and environmental telemetry. Our operational framework requires zero proprietary software or algorithm installation on host systems. Host partners provide raw time-series exports; UCMS performs computation internally and returns actionable diagnostic insights.

Collaboration Framework

• Data Security & IP Protection: Partners maintain full ownership of all raw data exports. UCMS proprietary operators and formulas remain internal, avoiding complex IP disputes or network integration hurdles.
• Participation Tiers:
  1. Retrospective Data Analysis: Diagnostic evaluation of historical telemetry covering documented stress events.
  2. Controlled Testbed Runs: Evaluation during scheduled, imposed-disturbance testing at research facilities.
  3. Live System Monitoring: Continuous or episodic analysis on active, occupied campuses and commercial sites.

Practical Answers for Institutions

The following answers define the engagement boundary. They are not a substitute for a written agreement.

Who administers the program?

The host institution handles research oversight, student supervision, data governance, and publication review within the agreed boundaries. The founder does not run the university’s program.

What if the measurement does not produce a meaningful result?

That outcome is acceptable. A bounded engagement is credible only if it can return an inconclusive or negative result rather than manufacture a positive finding. Stopping conditions are defined before execution.

Research Independence, Public Benefit, and Commercial Separation

The proposed Standard Coherence Fidelity Layer (SCFL) research program is intended to advance the independent measurement, characterization, and validation of coherence in complex systems.

The program is being developed toward an independently governed nonprofit structure dedicated to research, methodological validation, and the public benefit.

Participating institutions will retain control over their data and will participate under mutually agreed terms governing confidentiality, research permissions, publication, attribution, and intellectual property.

No institutional dataset, contribution, or research result will be transferred to a commercial enterprise for private exploitation merely because an institution participated in the program. Any proposed commercial use of jointly generated results or institution-controlled materials must be addressed through applicable agreements, permissions, and governance procedures.

The research program will seek independent evaluation, including findings that challenge, qualify, or fail to support SCFL’s underlying propositions. Participation does not imply endorsement of the framework or acceptance of its validity.

The long-term objective is to establish a credible, independently administered research program through which qualified institutions can evaluate SCFL using bounded, reproducible experiments on appropriate datasets, without assuming responsibility for administering the broader program.

The program’s purpose is to determine what can be measured, what the measurements establish, where their limitations lie, and whether the resulting knowledge can serve the public interest.

Methodology

A Request to Measure engagement follows a bounded, documented process. The goal is to produce interpretable structural measurements under controlled conditions so that an institution can independently assess whether the outputs contribute information beyond an agreed baseline.

1. Scope Definition

• One authorized dataset
• One primary research question
• One defined observation window or experimental scenario
• One pre-agreed comparison baseline, where feasible
• Explicit stopping conditions and deliverables

Scope is fixed before execution. Expansion is a separate decision, not an automatic continuation.

2. Data Handling

• The institution retains ownership of its raw data.
• Accepted formats include CSV, Parquet, HDF5, and MiniSEED.
• Partners may redact equipment identifiers, site names, or locations.
• Required metadata: sensor type, units, timestamp sequence, and relative layout where relevant.
• For blind evaluation, event timestamps, fault logs, and maintenance records are withheld until after the independent report is delivered.

3. Execution

1. Dataset transfer via secure method agreed by both parties.
2. Controlled execution of the frozen measurement specification (no source-code transfer required).
3. Internal processing produces structural state outputs, temporal observations where supported, and integrity checks.
4. Delivery of an independent report identifying findings, coverage, and limitations.
5. Optional unblinding and comparison against institutional ground truth.

4. Outputs

The minimum package includes:

• Measurement report (question, scope, configuration, findings, limitations)
• Structural state and change profile
• Coverage and evidence register
• Baseline comparison, where feasible
• Method and integrity record (specification version, configuration identifier, execution date)
• Decision brief stating what was established and what was not

5. Independent Assessment

Researchers may examine the data, select baselines, analyze authorized outputs, and report findings under the agreed protocol. Negative or inconclusive results are acceptable outcomes. The measurement is evaluated against pre-agreed criteria rather than against a predetermined conclusion.

Real-Time and Near Real-Time Perspective Cases

The majority of the dozens of prior test cases have been historical and retrospective. Those reconstructions have been useful for method development, but the current need is for real-time or near real-time perspective cases.

What a real-time or near real-time engagement tests

• Whether the measurement can be executed on current or recent telemetry rather than archived records alone
• Whether outputs remain interpretable under ordinary operational data conditions
• Whether the institution can receive and evaluate results on a timeline that is useful for its own research or operational questions
• How the measurement behaves when the observation window is still open rather than closed and fully documented

Relationship to historical work

Historical cases remain valuable for establishing baseline behavior, stress-event response, and method integrity. They do not, by themselves, answer whether the measurement can be produced prospectively. Real-time or near real-time cases are therefore a distinct and currently higher-priority class of engagement.

A bounded Request to Measure pilot can be designed as either a retrospective analysis of an existing record or a near real-time run on an active data stream. Both are valid. The program now explicitly seeks the latter where suitable datasets and institutional partners exist.

Candidate Operators

The frozen SCFL operator set is protected. This section lists candidate operators that have been identified for evaluation. Listing a candidate does not imply that it is part of the frozen specification, that it has been validated, or that it is available for use outside agreed research protocols.

Current Candidates

The candidate list is maintained separately from the frozen operator set. Entries will be added here as they are identified for evaluation. Each entry should note:

• Candidate identifier
• Intended measurement purpose
• Domains in which it has been tested (if any)
• Current status (proposed, under test, deferred, or retired)

No candidates are listed on this page at this time. The list will be updated as evaluation proceeds.

Operator testing is distinct from extensive measurement work. See the note under Capability Codes for the distinction.

Partial Attribution of Sources

Partial attribution. Prior work in the development of coherence measurement standards has drawn on both public and private sources. The listing below is not exhaustive. We thank the institutions, agencies, and data providers whose records, reports, and datasets have supported retrospective analysis and the refinement of measurement methods. Additional sources remain under documentation.

Investigation Reports

• U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) cases, including Motiva, Allied Terminals, Freedom Industries, and the Nippon Dynawave update
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): Fern Hollow Bridge, Florida International University pedestrian bridge, and Enbridge
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Surfside
• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): Davis-Besse
• Oroville Dam and Edenville Dam forensic reports

Oversight Reports

• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO): Denver International Airport
• FDIC Office of Inspector General loss reviews: Signature Bank and First Republic Bank

Financial Statements and Regulatory Filings

• SEC filings: Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic Bank, and Enron
• FDIC Call Reports
• CMS hospital cost reports

Government Datasets

• U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
• Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
• National Bridge Inventory
• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pipeline safety data
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

RTM Research Prospect List — Capability Code Legend

These codes support preliminary screening of institutions for bounded SCFL/RTM research experiments. They indicate potentially relevant research capabilities, not confirmed dataset access or prior participation.

How to Interpret the Codes

• Multiple codes indicate potentially relevant research capabilities, not confirmed access to specific datasets.
• Research fit is preliminary. Each institution would need to be checked for an appropriate research center, data availability, and a viable collaboration or access pathway.
• The codes are screening tools, intended to help match institutions with bounded SCFL/RTM research experiments—not to certify institutional capability or prior participation.

University-Hosted Structural Integrity Scan

Institutions can be preliminarily matched using the Capability Codes.

A bounded, in-situ SCFL Measurement Package for universities. The university supplies or identifies an existing dataset, the measurement process runs within its own environment, and the university receives a defined set of structural observations and outputs. You retain control of the calculation engine.

The Package

Proposed Pilot Specification (Deliberately Narrow)

• One dataset — One agreed asset, process, cohort, or system; no open-ended access to the university’s entire research estate.
• One measurement question — For example: Can an existing dataset reveal material changes in relational structure that conventional aggregate indicators do not describe?
• One bounded observation window — A defined historical interval or prospective period, selected according to the data’s temporal resolution.
• One controlled execution — Operators run in a controlled environment or restricted execution service. Raw data and intermediate calculations need not leave the university.
• One final deliverable — Measurement report, output files in agreed formats, methods-and-limitations statement, and a record sufficient to reproduce or audit the run to the extent contractually agreed.

A reasonable initial scope is one dataset, one question, one execution, and one report. Duration is set after the dataset is identified.

What the University Sees (Inspectable Evidence)

The deliverable is more than a graph or a single score. Specified outputs include:

• Measurement coverage: what was measured, time span, sampling resolution, missing data, exclusions, and limitations imposed by the source data.
• Structural state outputs: the agreed SCFL measurements and state characterizations, with units, scales, and definitions for the reported outputs.
• Temporal record: changes in those measurements over time, where the data supports time-resolved analysis.
• Change-point or event annotations: where material changes appear in the measured structure, without automatically claiming they predict failure.
• Conventional-indicator comparison: where feasible, comparison against existing indicators or operating records to show what the additional measurement contributes.
• Interpretation and limitations: what the results support, what remains ambiguous, and what the run cannot establish.
• Technical execution record: dataset version or fingerprint, configuration identifier, run date, exclusions, and output integrity checks.

The meaning of reported measurements can be disclosed without disclosing the proprietary procedure used to calculate them. The boundary is deliberate: proprietary computation remains internal; evidence remains inspectable.

Suitable University Datasets

Initial preference is for engineering or infrastructure datasets. Examples:

A university is not automatically the data owner. The initial request asks only for a dataset the institution is authorized to provide for this purpose.

Institutional Administration Model

The founder should not become the administrator of a distributed research program on top of being the originator of SCFL, its principal intellectual contributor, its commercial advocate, and the person responsible for protecting its operators. That would create a bottleneck. Design the structure so that intellectual stewardship is retained while an established institution assumes responsibility for research-program administration.

1. Roles

2. What Kind of Facility to Seek

Seek an existing unit that already administers external research collaborations, not an informal departmental favor.

• Interdisciplinary research institute (preferred): already coordinates faculty across engineering, systems science, computing, and other disciplines.
• University applied-research center: particularly suitable for instrumented assets, industrial data, energy systems, or structural integrity.
• Sponsored-research or research-services office: manages agreements, budgets, and compliance; may need scientific leadership alongside it.
• Independent nonprofit research institute: useful for a continuing, cross-university program.

The administrator and the scientific host can be different organizations. An institute can manage the program while individual university laboratories perform the research.

3. Bounded Administrative Mandate

Create a small, explicitly bounded administrative mandate rather than asking an institution to adopt the whole SCFL research agenda. The host would be responsible for:

• Establishing a research-program coordinator role
• Managing participating university relationships
• Maintaining a project register and standard agreements
• Coordinating dataset screening and project selection
• Administering any sponsored funding
• Maintaining research records and coordinating agreed reporting
• Organizing independent technical review and publication processes

You remain responsible for the intellectual boundaries of SCFL, but not the daily administration of individual projects. Administrative scope, staffing, funding, authority, liability, and intellectual-property arrangements must be agreed explicitly.

4. How to Make This Attractive to a Host

Frame the opportunity as the establishment of an administered, multi-project applied-research program in upstream structural measurement. The institution is not asked to validate all of SCFL in advance. It is invited to determine whether the proposed program merits hosting and to begin with one bounded demonstration.

The initial proposal requests:

• An institutional sponsor or faculty champion
• An administrative home and designated coordinator
• One suitable dataset and research group
• A defined pilot budget, including administrative costs
• A governance agreement separating program administration from proprietary measurement implementation
• A decision point at which the institution and founder assess whether to continue

5. Funding

An institution may be willing to host research but unwilling to administer a continuing program without funding. Make administrative capacity part of the initial proposal. Potential structures include a sponsored-research agreement, a foundation grant, a program-related charitable grant where eligible, or an external sponsor paying the institution’s agreed administrative and research costs. The host’s fee and founder compensation or licensing arrangements should be separately specified and transparent.

6. Strategic Consequence

The immediate objective is to find one institution willing to take responsibility for the program, rather than merely lend a dataset. The next practical step is a two-page Host Institution Proposal that defines the administrative mandate, minimum staffing and funding, the first pilot, governance boundaries, and what the institution gains from hosting the program.

Research Domains & Target Facilities

Domain fit can be screened using the Capability Code Legend.

Blind Real-Time & Retrospective Testing Requirements