This note defines the next adapter direction after spar_domain_physics.
The goal is not to turn SPAR into a generic governance tool. The goal is to extend SPAR from a physics proof case into a broader mathematical and scientific-model validation framework.
- PDE and simulation models
- dynamical systems
- control models
- inverse problems
- calibration models
- constrained optimization models
- scientific ML surrogates
- PINNs and hybrid scientific models
Analytical or contractual anchors for the model family:
- conservation or boundedness contracts
- convergence or residual contracts
- domain-specific validity regimes
Interpretation rules for model claims:
- exact vs approximate
- calibrated vs justified
- surrogate vs theory-grounded
- bounded regime vs general claim
Implementation and maturity review:
- heuristic
- partial
- closed
- environment-conditional
- research-only
The physics adapter proves SPAR in a hard domain. The scientific-model adapter would prove that the same review structure works across mathematical model families without collapsing into generic compliance prose.
That keeps SPAR where it is strongest:
- stable output is not enough
- passing regression is not enough
- numerical success does not automatically justify a stronger claim
- generic software linting
- business-rule validation
- replacing theorem provers
- replacing domain-specific scientific judgment
This adapter should extend SPAR's admissibility logic, not dilute it.