Reframing Japan's Photon Science Knowledge Infrastructure and Circulation for the SPring-8-II Era

This record is Version 1.5 of the discussion paper, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21032259. It updates Version 1.4.4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20956733. Title: Reframing Japan’s Photon Science Knowledge Infrastructure and Circulation for the SPring-8-II Era Subtitle: User-Centric and AI-Enabled Support across Complementary Photon Science Facilities Version 1.5 is a substantive conceptual and implementation-oriented update of the discussion paper. The central policy position remains unchanged from Version 1.4.4: SPring-8-II should be treated not only as a major source upgrade, but also as an opportunity to reframe user support, complementary facility use, data workflows, knowledge infrastructure, and knowledge circulation for Japan’s photon science ecosystem. Version 1.5 strengthens the paper by adding a deeper knowledge-infrastructure argument, clarifying why scientific discovery requires more than published results, and making the implementation safeguards for AI-assisted and knowledge-circulation support more visible. The main purpose of this update is to connect the proposed SPring-8-II-era access framework more explicitly to the preservation, recombination, and reuse of experimental knowledge. Version 1.5 clarifies that proposals, experiment logs, reports, failed trials, inconclusive results, intermediate states, degradation precursors, boundary conditions, and lessons learned are not merely administrative residues or unsuccessful outcomes. When handled under appropriate confidentiality, disclosure, and access-control conditions, they form part of the knowledge infrastructure needed for future user support, expert judgement, AI-assisted navigation, and scientific discovery. First, Version 1.5 adds a new Section 2, titled "The Knowledge Infrastructure Argument: Scientific Discovery Requires More Than Published Results." This section raises the conceptual level of the paper by explaining how scientific intuition, experimental judgement, and AI-assisted discovery depend on fragmented, tacit, negative, intermediate, and unpublished forms of experience. The added section argues that advanced photon-science facilities are not only measurement platforms, but also knowledge-production environments in which successes, failures, constraints, and boundary conditions should be made recoverable where appropriate. Second, Version 1.5 strengthens the discussion of AI-assisted analysis and AI agents. The paper clarifies that the growing use of machine-learning methods in synchrotron science does not reduce the importance of knowledge preservation. Rather, it makes the problem more consequential, because models trained primarily on successful and publishable measurements may underrepresent failure modes, degradation boundaries, unsuitable parameter ranges, anomalous intermediate states, and non-realisable experimental conditions. AI-assisted support is therefore framed not simply as automation, but as a means of reconnecting fragmented knowledge under human accountability. Third, Version 1.5 refines the relationship between the Photon Science Portal, the AI concierge, facility expertise, and knowledge circulation. The AI concierge continues to be described as an evidence-linked preparation, navigation, and handoff layer. It may help users clarify objectives, identify candidate methods and facilities, flag sample-environment, safety, confidentiality, and data-management issues, and prepare reviewable consultation packages for human experts. It should not replace peer review, safety approval, beamline-scientist judgement, beamtime allocation, proprietary-status decisions, legal or compliance judgement, confidentiality handling, or formal institutional decision-making. Fourth, the update clarifies the role of protected lessons-learned records. Negative, inconclusive, aborted, partially successful, or boundary-defining outcomes are described as potentially reusable scientific and operational knowledge when recorded in a protected, non-punitive, confidentiality-respecting, and permission-controlled manner. Version 1.5 further notes that such recording requires institutional incentives: it should be recognized as legitimate work time, separated from punitive evaluation, supported by lightweight templates, and designed to reduce review burden while preserving reusable knowledge. Fifth, Version 1.5 improves the institutional caution around intermediate-disclosure access. Intermediate-disclosure access is presented only as an illustrative design option, not as a proposed access category, pricing rule, disclosure obligation, or institutional commitment. Concrete institutional design, fee treatment, timing of disclosure, confidentiality protection, and legal or compliance handling are left for future consultation, pilot design, and implementation appendices. This clarification is intended to avoid over-specifying a sensitive policy area in the main text. Sixth, the implementation appendices are strengthened without expanding the main text. Version 1.5 makes the minimum pilot team, cost elements, and knowledge-curation workflow more visible. The appendices clarify that implementation costs include not only AI tools or computing resources, but also staff time, expert review, knowledge curation, secure storage, access-control management, audit logs, confidentiality handling, user communication, training, and evaluation. They also describe a lightweight knowledge-curation workflow from record creation to permission assignment, human review, indexing, reuse, feedback, and periodic review. Seventh, Version 1.5 preserves the distinction between strategic discussion and institutional decision-making. The proposed portal, AI concierge, protected records, knowledge-return infrastructure, and intermediate-disclosure options are presented as discussion concepts and possible design elements. They do not imply that RIKEN, JASRI, MEXT, or any participating facility has adopted a common portal, a centralized governance structure, a new access route, a data policy, or an operational commitment. Version 1.5 therefore advances the paper from an access-framework and user-support proposal toward a broader argument about photon-science knowledge infrastructure and knowledge circulation. It continues to connect question-first user support, complementary use of SPring-8-II, SACLA, NanoTerasu, and other facilities, AI-assisted navigation, proposal--experiment--report accountability records, data rights and responsibilities, protected lessons-learned records, and phased implementation safeguards. Version 1.5 includes the English version of the discussion paper, the accompanying Japanese machine translation, and explanatory slide PDFs in both English and Japanese. The files included in this version are: the English LaTeX source, the English PDF, the Japanese PDF machine translation, the English explanatory slide PDF, and the Japanese explanatory slide PDF. The Japanese machine translation and the Japanese explanatory slide PDF are provided to improve accessibility for Japanese readers and to support domestic discussion. They are accompanying reference and communication materials, and should be interpreted in relation to the English original. The Japanese explanatory slide PDF is a summary-oriented explanatory aid rather than an additional authoritative version of the discussion paper. In case of any ambiguity or discrepancy, the English version should be regarded as authoritative. Version 1.5 is intended as a substantive conceptual update rather than a sequence of minor typographical corrections. Minor typographical or wording corrections after this release should be accumulated and reflected only in a future substantive revision, rather than through frequent minor version updates. This document is an author-prepared strategic discussion paper for international dialogue. It does not represent an official policy decision of RIKEN, JASRI, MEXT, or any facility-governance body. The views, proposals, and interpretations expressed in this paper are those of the author alone and do not represent the official views, policies, or decisions of the author's affiliated institution or any related organization.Update note: Only the Japanese translation file has been replaced with a corrected version to improve consistency with the English authoritative version. The English discussion paper, DOI, title, authorship, version designation, and all other uploaded files remain unchanged. No substantive change has been made to the English original.