Interactive editors usually assume that users already know what to change. Yet an important interaction state comes earlier: a user may recognize that an artifact is not working without knowing what intervention to request. We call this the articulation gap. We introduce PROS (Proactive Refinement Of Scientific Posters), which separates epistemic initiative from behavioral authority: the system can surface source-grounded candidate problems, while users decide which become repair goals and whether resulting changes are committed. Accepted issues hand off to native-object PPTX editing with validation and reversible preview. We also introduce PROS-Bench, a source-linked collection of 120 papers and 320 editable PPTX posters, including a 120-poster matched primary core and a separate conference representation challenge. On the primary core, PROS achieves a mean VLM-rated stage-balanced diagnosis quality score of 67.2 on a 0-100 scale and 87.6% operator-verified target resolution among accepted diagnoses. Temporally blinded automated scoring yields a +22.7-point paper-macro accepted-target uplift, yet 14.8% of assessable accepted targets decline. This divergence shows why problem discovery, local resolution, and realized outcome should be evaluated separately. More broadly, intelligent editors can support problem discovery before a concrete edit request exists without taking authority over consequential change.

翻译：暂无翻译