Configuration-Memory Framework for All-Solid-State Batteries: A Design Principle, Literature Validation, and Experimental Design

This deposit is a conceptual framework and research-program package. It does NOT report new experimental or computational data. This package proposes treating all-solid-state batteries (ASSBs) not as a materials-discovery problem alone but as configuration-memory systems, in which failure pathways are selected by the freezing, remobilization, and retention of interfacial degrees of freedom. The cell state is decomposed as Xt = (C0fix, Rt, Zt) — assembly-fixed configuration, reconfigurable degrees of freedom, and history-frozen components — with freezing/remobilization times τi, τi′ and a freezing-branch variable ξi. The framework separates the visibility of configuration-dependent failure from the magnitude of configuration causation, via two conditioned diagnostics D0 and DZ, leading to a design bifurcation: configuration control where configuration-dependent failure is strong, configuration robustness where it can be absorbed. Three connected layers Conceptual framework — an extended paper and a compressed Perspective draft. Literature validation — a qualitative check finding that the configuration-to-failure premise is supported by three independent variables (stack pressure, pellet density, grain-boundary/pore geometry); that configuration is consistently entangled with material chemistry (which is why conditioned diagnostics are needed); and that the history-frozen side (Zt → failure) is established mainly in liquid cells and remains the open experimental frontier in ASSBs. Experiment design — a protocol to isolate DZ in a sulfide ASSB by holding chemistry and assembly fixed and varying only formation history. The layers are connected: layer 2 tests layer 1’s premise and locates its frontier; layer 3 targets the frontier layer 2 identified. Status and limits This is a conceptual and methodological contribution. No datasets were generated or analysed; the quantities defined (V0, MR, D0, DZ, τi, τi′) are not measured here. The framework’s central empirical claim — that early interfacial states and freezing events correspond reliably to later failure pathways — is stated as an unverified hypothesis whose test is proposed, not performed. The literature validation is qualitative: it establishes that the premise is observed in fragments across existing studies, not that the quantitative claims hold. The compressed draft is a submission draft and has not been peer-reviewed. Use of AI assistance Drafting was carried out with the assistance of large language model–based AI tools used as writing and reasoning aids. The conceptual direction, identification structure, design decisions, and final content are the author’s responsibility. References were checked against primary sources; items still requiring publisher-record confirmation are noted in the included checklist. No AI tool is listed as an author.