{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_external48_20260801","source_assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__history_historiography","selection_stratum":"MIDDLE_BAND_AUDIT_Q1","search_queries":["site:w3.org SWRL undecidable restrictions DL-safe rules official","digital history executable historical models temporal consistency checker chronology rules","site:cidoc-crm.org temporal consistency validation official specification","primary research historical event model temporal reasoning consistency checker digital history","digital humanities historical simulation rule engine temporal consistency verification","\"historical models\" \"temporal consistency\" checker","digital history platform event rules simulation chronology validation","historical knowledge graph SHACL temporal constraints validation digital humanities","site:w3.org/Submission/SWRL undecidable SWRL official submission","site:w3.org/TR owl 2 profiles polynomial time reasoning official","site:alloytools.org bounded analysis counterexample official documentation","site:bls.gov/ooh software developers median pay 2024","site:bls.gov/ooh historians median pay 2024","site:nusmv.fbk.eu user manual finite state model checker state explosion","site:apalache-mc.org bounded model checker official"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2017-07-20","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["SHACL validates RDF data against declared shapes and produces validation reports.","Conformance checking is Boolean, but processor failure is separate from nonconformance.","Failures may result from resource exhaustion, and recursive-shape semantics are left implementation-specific.","Validation reports identify focus nodes and violated constraints and may contain provenance metadata."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles (Second Edition)","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2012-12-11","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["OWL 2 profiles are syntactically restricted fragments that trade expressiveness for reasoning efficiency.","OWL 2 EL, QL, and RL have mechanically specified grammars and computational guarantees for designated reasoning tasks.","OWL 2 RL supports polynomial-time ontology consistency and related reasoning tasks."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Relationship of WSMO to Other Relevant Technologies","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","url":"https://www.w3.org/submissions/WSMO-related/","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2005-06-03","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Combining sufficiently expressive rules with OWL DL can make reasoning undecidable.","Strict syntactic variants such as WSML-Core, Flight, and Rule separate more implementable fragments from a full first-order language."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Representing and Validating Cultural Heritage Knowledge Graphs in CIDOC-CRM Ontology","publisher":"Future Internet (MDPI)","url":"https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13110277","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2021-10-29","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["A cultural-history project used OWL reasoning, SHACL shapes, SPARQL, and manual checks to validate a CIDOC-CRM knowledge graph.","The study includes temporal validation and reports concrete ontology-mapping errors.","Cultural-heritage knowledge-graph validation is an actual scholarly workflow, although not an unrestricted executable chronology checker."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Heterochronologies: A Platform for Correlation and Research in Temporal Graphics","publisher":"Digital Humanities Quarterly","url":"https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/16/3/000624/000624.html","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2022","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["A digital-history project found that chronologies embody culturally specific ontologies that should not automatically be collapsed into a single temporal standard.","Its problem-set analysis identified soft relations, mixed Boolean and non-Boolean data, and a need to represent uncertainty.","The project demonstrates scholarly reasons to distinguish formal tractability from historical or cultural adequacy."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"NuSMV 2.1 User Manual: Tutorial","publisher":"NuSMV Project, Fondazione Bruno Kessler","url":"https://nusmv.fbk.eu/userman/v21/nusmv_2.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2001","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["NuSMV admits finite-state models using finite data types and checks temporal-logic properties.","False properties can produce counterexample traces.","The documentation warns that inconsistent or inadmissible transition systems can yield deadlocks or vacuous results and recommends restricted description styles."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Running the Tool: Apalache Documentation","publisher":"Apalache Project","url":"https://apalache-mc.org/docs/apalache/running.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Apalache bounded model checking checks all executions only through a declared maximum length.","A bounded run is explicitly parameterized by execution length rather than presented as unrestricted verification."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Computer and Information Research Scientists","publisher":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics","url":"https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2025-08-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["The May 2024 median annual wage was $140,910, providing a labor-cost anchor for formal-methods and computational-research work."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"WEAK","rationale":"The technical premise is supported: sufficiently expressive rule/ontology combinations can be undecidable, while established tools obtain guarantees through restricted fragments, finite-state semantics, or explicit bounds. However, the bounded search did not identify a digital-history system that both accepts unrestricted scholar-authored executable rules and promises an exact terminating Boolean verdict, or that converts timeout into consistency or inconsistency. The candidate's exact problem prevalence therefore remains unverified.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S6","S7"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Actual cultural-heritage projects use formal graph validation, including temporal checks, so relevant scholarly workflows exist. Digital-humanities research also documents requirements for uncertainty, non-Boolean relations, and preservation of culturally specific temporal schemes. These findings support the importance of scoped outputs, but no repository or governance board was found requesting this particular checker or committing to preserve UNKNOWN downstream.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"OWL 2 profiles","similarity":"Uses mechanically enforceable syntactic fragments to exchange expressiveness for decidable or efficiently bounded reasoning guarantees.","remaining_difference":"It is a general Semantic Web standard, not an executable historical-event language with exhaustive reachable-chronology checking, witnessed temporal contradictions, version-linked guarantees, and an UNKNOWN/manual-review router.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"NuSMV finite-state model checking","similarity":"Restricts models to finite data types, evaluates temporal properties over reachable behavior, and can return counterexample traces; its documentation also warns about deadlocks and vacuous results.","remaining_difference":"It does not supply history-specific semantics, archival provenance, cultural-governance controls, or an out-of-fragment UNKNOWN policy for scholar-authored models.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"Apalache bounded model checking","similarity":"Provides a terminating, bounded search over all executions through a declared length, closely matching the proposed one-sided fallback outside a fully exhaustive fragment.","remaining_difference":"It is not a total consistency decision for unbounded behavior and does not itself implement the proposed admission classifier, historical-model output vocabulary, or scholarly governance workflow.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"CIDOC-CRM cultural-heritage validation with OWL and SHACL","similarity":"Applies formal consistency, structural constraints, temporal validation, diagnostic violations, and manual checks to real historical and cultural-heritage data.","remaining_difference":"It validates a finite RDF knowledge graph rather than all chronologies reachable from arbitrary executable event rules, and it does not implement explicit fragment membership plus UNKNOWN fallback semantics.","source_ids":["S1","S4"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"The remaining testable claim is a history-specific integration claim, not a new model-checking principle: a repository can enforce a formally reviewed executable-history fragment, exhaustively decide temporal consistency only for admitted models, route other models to witnessed bounded contradiction search or explicit UNKNOWN, and preserve versioned scope and provenance without erasing routine historiographical uncertainty. The core restriction, model-checking, counterexample, and bounded-search mechanisms already have substantial prior art.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Standards and official tool documentation demonstrate implementable grammars for restricted reasoning profiles, finite-state temporal model checking with counterexamples, bounded all-execution checks, and a failure channel distinct from Boolean nonconformance. The missing implementation evidence is candidate-specific: no concrete historical rule grammar, scheduler, membership algorithm, coverage study, correctness proof, or state-growth benchmark exists.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Preventing a bounded failure or timeout from acquiring false scholarly authority could be meaningful, particularly where formal validation is already used. Impact magnitude is capped because no offending system, error frequency, or realized harm was found.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Scholarly projects demonstrate demand for validation, uncertainty, and culturally sensitive temporal representation, but no adopter requested this mechanism or indicated willingness to accept UNKNOWN.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Compared with a timeout-coerced Boolean baseline, enforced scope, counterexamples, and explicit bounded or unknown outcomes are materially better. Relative to existing formal-methods practice, however, these are established safeguards rather than a large algorithmic advance.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The history-specific governance and provenance composition may remain differentiable, but its core mechanisms substantially collide with OWL profiles, finite-state model checking, bounded checking, SHACL diagnostics, and existing cultural-heritage validation.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"All principal building blocks are demonstrated, but the proposal lacks the concrete grammar, finite-state proof, scheduler semantics, fragment-membership checker, and representative state-growth results required for this use case.","source_ids":["S2","S6","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Cultural-heritage professionals and data owners plausibly control schemas and validation workflows, but the search found no named repository, empowered board, procurement path, or downstream enforcement commitment for this candidate.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Prior art and technical feasibility are well evidenced, but the central prevalence claim, adopter demand, candidate grammar, proof, benchmark, and interface-behavior evidence remain absent.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Separating resource or semantic failure from nonconformance is already recognized in SHACL, while bounded tools label their execution limit. Adding UNKNOWN, witnesses, scope metadata, and rollback would directly reduce unsupported Boolean authority.","source_ids":["S1","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Restricted profiles can scale, but finite-state verification still faces state-space growth, and historical chronologies may require heterogeneous, uncertain, and non-Boolean representations that a narrow fragment could exclude.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A four-to-six-week, non-deployment audit of one documented checker or repository, including historian, curator, and formal-methods review; a synthetic test suite; interface and timeout inspection; and a written go/no-go decision. Includes labor, coordination, existing-tool software, limited compute, documentation, and review, but no production data migration.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["One accessible system is examined.","Synthetic non-public examples suffice.","Approximately one to three person-months are distributed across historian, curator, software, and formal-methods roles.","Existing open-source reasoning and model-checking tools are reused.","BLS research-scientist compensation is only a labor anchor; loaded institutional or consulting rates may be higher."],"source_ids":["S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Specify a concrete historical-event grammar and scheduler, implement fragment admission and exhaustive checking, add provenance-linked result schemas and UNKNOWN routing, build synthetic and representative-data tests, integrate one non-public repository workflow, and obtain independent proof and humanities-governance review. Includes engineering, formal research, historian/curator time, software, compute, security and accessibility review, coordination, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A narrow fragment can reuse existing model-checking or semantic-web components.","Two to five specialist person-years are required across disciplines.","No major archival migration or custom hardware is required.","The first proof review does not force a complete semantic redesign.","Only one institution and one bounded workflow are integrated."],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Harden and document the integrated checker; validate membership, correctness, termination, and resource limits; test downstream preservation of UNKNOWN; train users; establish versioning, recheck triggers, incident handling, accessibility, governance approval, and an independently evaluated limited release. Includes labor, software, compute, compliance, coordination, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains limited to one institution.","The fragment and proof obligations stabilize before launch.","State growth is manageable for the approved workload.","Downstream interfaces can represent UNKNOWN and scope metadata without major replacement.","No public claim equates model consistency with historical truth."],"source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain the grammar, checker, tests, dependencies, and provenance records; review rule-language changes; rerun affected models; monitor state growth, UNKNOWN coercion, and guarantee drift; support users and manual escalation; and conduct periodic formal and scholarly governance review. Includes labor, software, compute, coordination, compliance, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The deployment remains one repository or a small related group.","Maintenance averages roughly 0.5 to 1.5 specialist full-time equivalents plus governance participation.","Rule-language changes are infrequent.","Manual-review volume stays bounded.","No annual redevelopment of the proof foundation is required."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The computability and scope-mislabeling risk is externally credible, but no relevant digital-history system was found making or operationally implying the alleged unrestricted exact terminating Boolean guarantee.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S6","S7"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Actual cultural-heritage projects use formal validation and care about representational uncertainty, but no named repository, board, or steward has expressed authority and intent to adopt this intervention.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate can be tested against a Boolean or timeout-coercing baseline by measuring fragment-membership correctness, exhaustive-checker soundness and termination, witness validity, UNKNOWN preservation, and coverage of routine synthetic models.","source_ids":["S1","S6","S7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A single-system documentation and interface audit using synthetic cases can falsify the problem claim without production data or live deployment.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The evidence step can remain non-public and synthetic, while historical scholarship supplies a clear requirement not to collapse culturally specific or uncertain chronologies into Boolean truth claims. Any interpretation of model consistency as historical truth remains a halt condition.","source_ids":["S5"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The broad bands include the required interdisciplinary labor, formal review, software, compute, integration, governance, compliance, coordination, and evaluation. They remain low-confidence planning ranges because the host architecture, grammar, proof burden, and model volume are unknown.","source_ids":["S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Run a four-to-six-week, non-deployment audit of one named digital-history or cultural-heritage checker. Inspect its declared rule language, finiteness restrictions, timeout handling, user-visible claims, exports, and downstream coercions. On synthetic models, compare the current system with a reference three-outcome wrapper using: a finite consistent case, a finite contradictory case with a witness, an unbounded or nonterminating rule case, and an out-of-fragment case. The principal falsifier is that the existing system already enforces a finite or otherwise decidable class, separates failure or UNKNOWN from conformance, and makes only bounded or instance-level claims; if so, stop and classify the opportunity as known-practice documentation rather than proceed to implementation.","blocking_evidence":["No identified digital-history system has been shown to accept unrestricted executable event rules while promising exact terminating Boolean temporal-consistency verdicts.","No named repository, governance board, or data steward has requested the change or committed to preserve UNKNOWN downstream.","No concrete grammar, scheduler, semantics, mechanically decidable admission test, or proof obligations have been specified.","No independent correctness and termination review exists for the proposed admitted fragment.","No coverage study shows that routine historiographical questions fit the fragment without suppressing uncertainty or culturally specific temporal schemes.","No benchmark establishes practical reachable-state growth for representative models.","The exact integration difference from existing OWL/SHACL validation, finite-state model checking, and bounded checking has not been prototyped."],"research_disposition":"PROBLEM_PREVALENCE_STUDY","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded search does not establish or imply a world-novelty conclusion. It found substantial prior art for restricted reasoning profiles, finite-state exhaustive checking, bounded counterexample search, separate failure channels, and cultural-heritage temporal validation; it found no exact history-specific implementation of the full proposed composition, but absence in this search is not evidence that none exists anywhere."}