Coordination is the phenomenon to explain
Collective behaviour becomes scientifically useful when the group outcome and the proposed mechanism are described separately. Tóth and Duffy’s 2005 experiments documented coordinated snapping responses to intruders in social shrimp. That finding is a biological starting point, not proof of a general optimisation algorithm.
The programme would compare explanations based on local cues, environmental structure, and interactions among individuals. “Intelligence” would be used only with a stated operational meaning.
A careful bridge between fields
Models of moving animal groups show how researchers can investigate group decisions from explicit interaction rules. Couzin and colleagues’ 2005 work is a useful theoretical reference. Its assumptions concern moving groups and cannot be transferred unchanged to animals occupying sponge passages.
A cross-domain comparison would identify corresponding variables, missing mechanisms, and incompatible assumptions before presenting a shared diagram. Similar pictures are not sufficient evidence of the same causal process.
Proposed experiments in explanation
Initial simulations would vary one mechanism at a time: a response threshold, the reach of a signal, or the geometry of a contact network. The purpose would be to show which kinds of outcomes the assumptions permit. Parameters would be identified as illustrative unless linked to a documented measurement.
A useful test would compare a social-interaction model with an environmental-cue model. If both produce the same visible synchrony, the programme would identify an additional observation needed to distinguish them.
Evidence before application
The anticipated output is a set of teaching demonstrations and research questions, not a claim that a shrimp colony has solved a named engineering problem. Successful transfer to an engineered system would require its own benchmark, failure analysis, and comparison with simpler alternatives.
The association’s proposed role is to make those comparisons legible, reproducible, and open to correction.