{
  "id": "https://uofa.net/nagaraja/decision/cou1-overall",
  "type": "DecisionRecord",
  "actor": "https://uofa.net/org/nagaraja-grau-inc",
  "role": "Credibility assessment team",
  "outcome": "Accepted",
  "rationale": "Model accuracy met pre-established criterion of <10% difference between FEA and experiment for all three QoIs (stiffness 1.5% E/D, yield load 1.1% E/D, force at 40 mm 1.3% E/D). Critical stress location (rod midshaft) matched experimental failure mode. Test-conditions factor shortfall (achievedLevel 1 vs requiredLevel 3) is acknowledged and offset by N=11 sample size which exceeds typical spinal-device testing recommendations.",
  "decidedAt": "2024-03-08T00:00:00Z",
  "hasOffsetRationale": {
    "id": "https://uofa.net/nagaraja/decision/cou1-overall/offset/test-conditions",
    "type": "OffsetRationale",
    "refersToFactor": "https://uofa.net/nagaraja/cou1/factor/test-conditions",
    "justification": "Test-conditions factor shortfall (achievedLevel 1 vs requiredLevel 3) — single ASTM F1717 static compression-bending condition — is offset by N=11 experimental constructs across two laboratories, which exceeds the typical spinal-device testing sample size convention. Nagaraja et al. (2024) §4 acknowledges the limitation explicitly and treats the larger sample size as compensating evidence for the narrow loading-condition coverage."
  }
}