{"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__architecture_urban_planning","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"architecture_urban_planning","title":"Enforceable Computability Boundaries for Parametric Plan Compliance","opportunity_summary":"Evaluate whether a universal, terminating Boolean compliance checker is possible for the legally accepted plan-rule language, then constrain checking to proved decidable fragments and route other cases through explicitly labeled bounded, approximate, UNKNOWN, or official-review paths. The opportunity is conditional: the accepted inputs may already form a finite total class, and neither demand nor distinctiveness is established closed-book.","adopter_authorizer":"A municipal building or planning authority could adopt the workflow, while the legally authorized building or planning official retains permit and enforcement authority and designated technical reviewers approve formal boundary evidence.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preventing unsupported compliance verdicts could protect life safety, accessibility, due process, applicant timelines, and public trust. The consequences are material, but the packet does not establish how often unrestricted-checker promises or resulting errors occur."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Officials, applicants, reviewers, and permit-platform developers have plausible reasons to value auditable scope labels and fewer deceptive verdicts. No supplied evidence demonstrates active demand, procurement intent, recurring failures, or willingness to absorb UNKNOWN cases."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Relative to scripts, test suites, timeouts, and a larger rules engine, the proposal adds formal scope boundaries, proof obligations, UNKNOWN preservation, and guarantee-aware routing. Whether this improves safety or throughput over ordinary review is explicitly unresolved and testable."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The combined boundary-proof, decidable-fragment, labeled-fallback, and authority-preserving package is coherent and domain-specific. Prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing code-checking, permitting, and formal-rule systems cannot be affirmed."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Formalizing and testing one encoded egress-rule subset with a fixed corpus appears technically bounded, and explicit routing states are implementable in principle. Domain-faithful reduction, semantic fidelity, useful-fragment coverage, and sound abstraction remain substantial uncertainties."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet identifies the competent municipal authority, preserves officials' legal decision rights, excludes automated permit decisions, and provides halt and rollback rules. Procurement, governance, and interdepartmental acceptance are not evidenced."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers, a fixed-subset shadow study, comparison with official review, boundary-case injection, and explicit stop conditions. Execution still requires formal semantics, a suitable corpus, and qualified reviewers."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"UNKNOWN preservation, declared scope, prohibition on interpreting timeouts as verdicts, official review fallback, record retention, and rollback directly reduce the risk that unsupported automation becomes a consequential compliance decision."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Each jurisdiction may require rule formalization, legal interpretation, model alignment, corpus construction, reviewer capacity, and enforcement of language restrictions. The packet does not show that useful fragments transfer across jurisdictions or that UNKNOWN volume remains manageable."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"A bounded shadow study for one jurisdiction's formally encoded egress-rule subset: specify semantics and input bounds, attempt a termination proof or counterexample, inject boundary cases, and compare labeled outputs with official review on a fixed corpus.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The jurisdiction already has or can supply a machine-readable egress subset and usable fixed corpus.","Work includes formal-methods expertise, code-rule expertise, official reviewer time, secure data handling, evaluation, and coordination.","The study produces no live permit decisions and does not attempt a universal checker."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Convert a validated subset and router into a controlled shadow-production capability for one authority, including platform integration, scope enforcement, audit records, access controls, training, legal review, and acceptance testing.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Only one jurisdiction and a limited rule fragment are included.","Existing permit-platform interfaces can support shadow integration without full replacement.","No automated approval or denial authority is introduced."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Launch a governed, human-authorized workflow covering a useful set of plan submissions, with maintained formal rules, exception routing, monitoring, quality assurance, incident response, reviewer procedures, and applicant-facing scope disclosures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The validated fragment covers enough submissions to justify launch.","UNKNOWN and false-alarm volumes remain within official-review capacity.","Legal, accessibility, cybersecurity, procurement, and records requirements can be satisfied without rebuilding the full permitting system."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Annual maintenance for one authority, including rule and semantics updates, regression and soundness testing, platform operations, audits, reviewer support, incident handling, and periodic revalidation of declared boundaries.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment remains limited to one authority and a bounded collection of rule fragments.","Material code changes require renewed evidence rather than silent rule expansion.","Recurring costs exclude major platform replacement and multi-jurisdiction expansion."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet identifies an externally recognizable failure mode: a total Boolean checker advertised without explicit input-language, computation, termination, or proof boundaries, with timeout and unsupported states potentially conflated with verdicts."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Municipal planning or building authorities are identifiable adopters, and the legally authorized building or planning official is explicitly retained as the permit and enforcement decision-maker."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that enforced fragments plus labeled routing will prevent unsupported Boolean verdicts and yield a better safety-throughput tradeoff than conventional scripts, timeouts, larger engines, or ordinary review; shadow comparisons and label-leakage tests can falsify that claim."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate defines a shadow-mode test on one jurisdiction's egress subset, a fixed corpus, formal semantics, termination proof or challenge, injected boundary cases, and comparison with official review."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is non-consequential shadow testing; automatic approval or denial, weakened safety requirements, timeout reinterpretation, and out-of-bound generalization are excluded, with explicit halt and rollback conditions."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The one-jurisdiction, one-rule-subset pilot and subsequent bounded deployment stages are sufficiently scoped for broad resource-equivalent bands, although integration condition and reviewer workload keep confidence limited."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether every legally accepted plan and rule is already confined to an effectively enforceable finite or total class with a uniform terminating correct procedure.","Whether the actual plan-rule contract can express unbounded computation or supports a domain-faithful, answer-preserving impossibility construction.","Whether the proposed decidable fragment covers a useful share and diversity of submissions without excluding innovative or accessibility-critical designs.","Whether the router avoids unsound clearances, in-scope misrouting, scope-label leakage, and model-to-reality mismatch.","Whether UNKNOWN and false-alarm volumes remain manageable and produce a better safety-throughput tradeoff than ordinary official review.","Whether materially similar boundary, verification, and fallback approaches already exist in planning and permitting systems."],"next_evidence_step":"With one willing jurisdiction, preregister and run a shadow-only study on a fixed corpus and formally encoded egress-rule subset: compare the boundary router's exact, bounded, UNKNOWN, and official-review labels against ordinary official review and the current scripted or timeout baseline, while attempting both a uniform termination proof and a domain-faithful counterexample. Falsify advancement on any unsound clearance, label leakage, unenforced scope, material model mismatch, or absence of comparative safety or throughput benefit.","research_questions":["What plan and rule representations are legally accepted, and which bounds or totality restrictions are actually enforceable at submission time?","Can a checked constructive procedure prove uniform termination and correctness for the accepted class, or can a domain-faithful answer-preserving reduction establish an unrestricted boundary?","What useful submission coverage can sound decidable fragments achieve, including atypical and accessibility-critical designs?","How do unsound clearances, false alarms, UNKNOWN rates, review time, and label leakage compare with ordinary review and the current scripted or timeout baseline?","What governance and interface controls prevent bounded or one-sided guarantees from being presented as universal compliance verdicts?","What relevant formal-verification, automated code-checking, permitting, and rule-system prior art bears on the package's distinctiveness?","What staffing and escalation capacity is required to keep UNKNOWN cases from overwhelming authorized reviewers?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book evidence does not establish problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, prior art, or realized impact.","The central impossibility premise is conditional on the computational expressiveness of the actual accepted plan-rule language.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges rather than observed prices and have limited confidence beyond the bounded first study.","A proof about a formal model does not by itself establish fidelity to legal text, spatial reality, construction, or inspection conditions.","Evidence from one jurisdiction or bounded fragment cannot be generalized beyond its declared semantics and bounds.","High safety significance does not establish that the proposed intervention will improve throughput or be adopted."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art was not searched. This assessment evaluates only the sealed candidate's internal structure, testability, authority safeguards, and stated comparison; it makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, existing implementations, market size, exact cost, or realized impact."}