{"schema_version":1,"assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","source_experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__archaeology_paleontology","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"archaeology_paleontology","title":"Enforceable Computability Boundaries for Site-Formation Reachability Analysis","opportunity_summary":"Conditionally redesign a site-formation or taphonomic reachability service so that mechanically certified model fragments receive exact analysis while other inputs receive bounded or one-sided analysis with explicit UNKNOWN, timeout, and out-of-scope labels. The opportunity is coherent and safety-oriented, but the packet does not establish that a deployed service has the diagnosed unrestricted guarantee or that the proposed language supports the required undecidability reduction.","adopter_authorizer":"The project methods lead and domain custodian would jointly authorize output semantics, with an independent formal reviewer approving any class-wide computability guarantee.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the diagnosed service exists, preventing timeouts from becoming false inconsistency claims could materially improve the auditability of archaeological or paleontological conclusions and avoid investment in an impossible specification. The frequency and practical scale of that condition are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Relevant model authors, researchers, curators, and methods teams are identified, but the packet supplies no evidence that any deployed service makes the unrestricted guarantee, exhibits the stated timeout behavior, or has stakeholders requesting this safeguard."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Mechanical fragment admission, guarantee-aware routing, and separate UNKNOWN and timeout states directly improve on the stated baseline of universal search followed by NO or generic failure. The advantage narrows if inspection shows all accepted inputs are already effectively bounded."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The combination of language-specific boundary proof, enforceable fragment membership, and labeled fallback is a coherent differentiator from complexity-only optimization, but prior art is unsearched and world novelty is explicitly unmeasured."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A frozen finite-state fragment, exhaustive synthetic oracle, and explicit routing policy are technically bounded, but the language-specific reduction, abstraction verdict polarity, semantic fidelity, and practical cost of finite exact analysis remain unresolved."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet assigns output-semantics authority to the methods lead and domain custodian and reserves class-wide guarantees for independent formal review. Feasibility is reduced slightly because no actual institution or current service owner is evidenced."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate is a hypothesis with concrete falsifiers and a safe synthetic test, but lacks production-condition evidence, a completed answer-preserving reduction, independent proof review, and a defined abstraction-polarity contract."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Explicit YES, NO, UNKNOWN, timeout, and out-of-scope states, together with halt criteria and rollback to UNKNOWN, strongly reduce the risk that failed search becomes a definitive historical claim without modifying collections or provenance."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The fragment-certification and fallback architecture could be reused across model sets, but every modeling language requires its own semantic audit, boundary proof, membership enforcement, and performance validation."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Freeze a small synthetic grammar, implement and exhaustively cross-check a finite-state analyzer against an independently enumerated oracle, formalize one candidate unbounded extension, attempt one explicit source-to-target reduction, and obtain domain and independent formal review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["No real collections or production interpretations are used.","The grammar, analyzer, oracle corpus, and proof artifacts are small enough for a compact interdisciplinary team.","The estimate includes formal-methods labor, domain review, software implementation, coordination, and evaluation.","No exact labor rates or existing reusable infrastructure are known."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Audit the accepted production grammar and inputs, specify semantics and abstraction polarity, build enforceable fragment admission and guarantee-aware routing, integrate explicit output states, validate migration behavior, and complete governance and reviewer approval.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A production service exists and exposes an auditable grammar and output contract.","Integration does not require replacement of the entire modeling platform.","Historical outputs can be retained and relabeled without destructive migration.","Security, compliance, data-access, partner coordination, and evaluation effort are included."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Release the validated routing and labeling system to a bounded user group, train methods and domain staff, monitor misrouting and downstream label handling, document limitations, and independently review any class-wide guarantee before broader use.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch follows successful synthetic and production-specification validation.","No pilot output changes collections, provenance, or archaeological interpretations.","Finite exact analysis has acceptable resource requirements for the initial bounded workload.","The band includes launch engineering, training, review, monitoring, and rollback readiness."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain grammar certification, regression oracles, solver infrastructure, routing and output-label monitoring, semantic documentation, periodic formal review, and review of new language features.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The accepted language changes infrequently.","Compute demand remains moderate and bounded-fragment analysis is operationally tractable.","A small fraction of formal-methods, software, and domain-custodian capacity is retained.","Material expansion of expressiveness would require separate research rather than routine maintenance."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The timeout-to-NO failure mode is recognizable and operationally specified, but the packet provides no evidence that an actual deployed archaeology or paleontology service accepts the claimed open-ended language or advertises a universal exact decider."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal identifies the project methods lead and domain custodian as joint authorizers of output semantics and an independent formal reviewer as approver of class-wide guarantees."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that enforced fragment admission plus explicit UNKNOWN and timeout routing will prevent resource exhaustion or out-of-fragment inputs from being reported as definitive NO; the synthetic-oracle test can falsify that claim."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A small frozen synthetic grammar, finite-state analyzer, enumerated oracle, one unbounded extension, and one explicit reduction attempt form a bounded and reversible comparison with stated failure conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized first step uses synthetic models only, changes no collection or interpretation, requires joint domain authority and independent proof review, and has explicit halt and rollback criteria. Remaining gaps concern evidence and correctness rather than an unresolved permission to conduct that step."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate specifies enough components—grammar audit, analyzer, oracle, routing, semantic labels, reviews, integration, monitoring, and maintenance—to define broad resource-equivalent scopes and bands, although confidence remains low without an actual system."}},"blocking_evidence":["Evidence that a deployed or planned service accepts an effectively unbounded modeling language and claims terminating exact reachability for every accepted input.","An audit of actual grammar features, accepted production inputs, output contracts, and timeout handling, including the problem falsifier that all instances may already be bounded and UNKNOWN already preserved.","A total computable source-to-target translation for the candidate unbounded extension, with a proof of answer preservation under frozen semantics and independent formal review.","A specified abstraction relation and justified verdict polarity for existential reachability, showing which definitive outputs remain sound.","Synthetic-oracle evidence that exact routing terminates and classifies every bounded instance correctly, rejects out-of-fragment inputs, and never converts budget exhaustion into NO.","Domain-review evidence that the formal grammar and observations faithfully represent the intended archaeological or paleontological modeling claims."],"next_evidence_step":"On synthetic models only, compare a constructive finite-state analyzer with an independently enumerated oracle over a frozen small grammar, while testing one explicitly specified unbounded extension through a source-to-target reduction. Falsify advancement if any bounded instance is misclassified or fails to terminate, any out-of-fragment instance enters the exact route, budget exhaustion becomes NO, or the reduction fails total answer preservation; retain all affected results as UNKNOWN.","research_questions":["Does any actual service or planned specification make the diagnosed class-wide terminating exact-reachability guarantee?","Are all accepted production models effectively finite or bounded, making this a complexity-engineering problem instead?","Can the proposed unbounded extension encode the selected undecidable source through a total computable, answer-preserving translation?","Is safe-fragment membership mechanically decidable and enforceable at every input boundary?","What abstraction relation is intended, and which YES or NO verdicts are sound for existential reachability under that relation?","Does the finite analyzer agree with an independently enumerated oracle on every instance in the bounded synthetic corpus?","Will downstream users preserve UNKNOWN as distinct from NO rather than operationally coercing it?","Does restricting expressiveness exclude process behavior that domain researchers consider essential?","Is exact analysis within the certified finite fragment computationally practical for representative workloads?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["No external sources or prior-art search were used.","Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, and realized impact are unmeasured.","The existence and behavior of a deployed target service are unsupported.","Prior art and world novelty are unmeasured, so distinctiveness cannot be affirmed.","The undecidability branch remains a conjecture until a language-specific reduction and preservation proof pass independent review.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges rather than estimates from an inspected implementation.","The assessment applies computability claims only to the chosen formal representation and requested guarantee, not to the physical past itself."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is UNSEARCHED and world novelty is unmeasured. This assessment evaluates only the sealed candidate's internal plausibility, testability, safety, authority, and resource scope; it makes no claim about existing methods, deployed-system prevalence, market size, or uniqueness."}