{"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__chemistry_materials","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"chemistry_materials","title":"Enforceable Computability Boundaries for Reaction-Network Hazard Screening","opportunity_summary":"For a versioned reaction-network language, formally map where exact hazard reachability is warranted, enforce those boundaries at input validation, route accepted models to guarantee-labeled analysis modes, and return UNKNOWN rather than converting timeout or non-observation into SAFE. The unrestricted-class impossibility hypothesis remains unresolved and must not be asserted without a valid, independently reviewed certificate.","adopter_authorizer":"The process-safety owner and scientific-methods lead jointly authorize labels and scope enforcement; an independent reviewer authorizes computability claims.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preventing an inconclusive computation from becoming a false SAFE verdict could materially protect workers, communities, operators, and downstream users. The severity is clear, but the frequency of such mislabeling in actual projects is unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal names directly affected safety and modeling stakeholders and a plausible joint authority, but provides no evidence that these parties currently demand boundary mapping or will accept UNKNOWN-heavy outputs."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Unlike the stated baseline and nearest rival, enforceable scope checks and guarantee-labeled routing directly address whether a Boolean safety claim is warranted, not merely whether simulation can be accelerated. Advantage remains contingent on useful coverage and label compliance."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The combination is coherently specified, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and distinctiveness relative to existing reaction-network verification and process-safety practices is unknown."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Formalizing one language, building a bounded solver, reviewing certificates, and shadow-routing archived models are plausible bounded tasks. A valid reduction, sound scope checker, useful decidable fragment, and faithful chemistry semantics are not yet established."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Named process-safety, scientific-methods, and independent-review roles can authorize the non-operational first step, with explicit exclusions and rollback. Production authority and downstream label enforcement are less fully specified."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers, a four-week desk test, a 20-model shadow comparison, halt criteria, and archived-model access as an assumption. No completed theorem, baseline audit, or shadow result is present."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"UNKNOWN routing, prohibition of timeout-as-SAFE, independent review, input-bound enforcement, halt triggers, record withdrawal, and reversion to human-reviewed procedures form a strong proposal-specific safety net without changing physical operations."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The routing and labeling pattern could be reused across model classes, but each versioned language and hazard predicate may require separate formalization, review, scope enforcement, and rechecking when assumptions change."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Four-week desk study for one versioned reaction language and one hazard predicate, including formal specification, attempted reduction, constructive bounded solver, independent review, and shadow-routing of 20 archived models.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Archived models and their handling permissions are available without major acquisition expense.","A small team includes formal-methods, reaction-modeling, process-safety, and independent-review labor.","No physical experiment or operational process change occurs.","The bounded solver can reuse existing internal simulation infrastructure where appropriate."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Develop and validate production-grade scope checking, routing, guarantee labels, audit records, UNKNOWN handling, and integration for one reaction-language workflow.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment is limited to one organization and one principal modeling stack.","The desk test identifies at least one useful enforceable fragment.","Existing safety-review and identity systems can be integrated rather than replaced.","Costs include software engineering, formal validation, compliance review, training, and partner coordination."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch the validated workflow into governed safety-screening operations, including acceptance testing, historical comparison, user training, downstream procedure updates, monitoring, and rollback readiness.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch does not require new laboratory or plant equipment.","No regulator-specific certification program beyond normal organizational safety governance is required.","UNKNOWN rates are low enough to permit a controlled operational workflow.","Human-reviewed safety procedures remain available as fallback."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Maintain scope definitions, solvers, integrations, auditability, independent review, user support, monitoring, and boundary rechecks as languages, predicates, or modeling assumptions change.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One organization operates a modest portfolio of versioned model classes.","Specialist formal-methods and process-safety review remains necessary.","Material representation changes trigger renewed validation.","The estimate excludes major expansion to multiple enterprises or substantially different modeling languages."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet clearly describes the safety-relevant failure mode of treating timeout or non-observation as SAFE, but supplies no external evidence that this occurs in deployed materials or process-safety workflows or at meaningful frequency."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The process-safety owner and scientific-methods lead are explicitly assigned joint approval authority, with an independent reviewer assigned authority over computability claims."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that boundary mapping, enforced routing, and UNKNOWN labels improve guarantee correctness and scope handling relative to simulation-until-timeout; the 20-model shadow comparison supplies a stated falsifier."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized four-week desk test is limited to one versioned language, one hazard predicate, independent review, and 20 archived models, with no physical operational changes."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step has named authorities, affected parties, excluded actions, explicit halt conditions, record withdrawal, and rollback to existing human-reviewed safety procedures."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The sealed candidate bounds the desk test but does not define production system scale, integration requirements, compliance obligations, staffing, or the number of model classes sufficiently to support a confident implementation range."}},"blocking_evidence":["Evidence that timeout, non-observation, or out-of-scope analysis is actually converted into SAFE in the intended production workflow.","A checked constructive result or valid semantics-preserving impossibility certificate for the specified reaction language, computation model, quantifiers, and hazard predicate.","Independent confirmation that the formal model represents the relevant chemical task rather than relying on physically unrealizable unbounded counts or transitions.","Shadow-test evidence that routing reduces false SAFE labels or scope confusion relative to baseline without rejecting materially more valid cases.","Measured coverage and UNKNOWN rates showing that at least one enforceable fragment is operationally useful and that downstream users do not interpret UNKNOWN as SAFE.","A scoped production integration and governance assessment sufficient to refine startup, launch, and recurring resource bands."],"next_evidence_step":"Run the authorized four-week desk test on one frozen reaction language and hazard predicate: compare boundary-enforced, guarantee-labeled routing against the existing simulation/timeout interpretation on 20 archived models, while independently reviewing both an attempted impossibility reduction and a constructive bounded solver. Stop or redesign if any guarantee is mislabeled, a scope check fails, the formal semantics do not preserve the chemical task, routing does not reduce false SAFE or scope-confusion cases, or valid-case rejection increases without improved guarantee correctness.","research_questions":["How often does the intended baseline workflow convert timeout, prolonged non-observation, or out-of-scope analysis into an explicit or operational SAFE decision?","What exact syntax, semantics, computation model, quantifiers, initial conditions, and hazard predicate define the production class?","Can a total exact algorithm be checked for that class, or can a semantics-preserving impossibility reduction be independently validated?","Which finite or otherwise decidable fragments cover archived and anticipated production models?","How do guarantee correctness, false SAFE labels, scope confusion, valid-case rejection, and UNKNOWN frequency compare with baseline across the 20 archived models?","Do the abstractions and reductions preserve chemically and operationally relevant behavior?","How do operators and downstream decision makers interpret UNKNOWN, and what controls prevent it from functioning as SAFE?","What existing verification, reaction-network analysis, and process-safety practices overlap with the proposed scope enforcement and routing design?","What production integrations, compliance reviews, staffing, and model-change triggers determine implementation and recurring cost?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["The chemistry-specific undecidability proposition is only a hypothesis; no unrestricted-class conclusion is warranted from the packet.","Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, and production false-SAFE frequency are unmeasured.","Prior art and world-level distinctiveness are unsearched.","The formal reaction-rule model may not faithfully represent deployed physical chemistry.","Useful decidable-fragment coverage, UNKNOWN frequency, user label compliance, and false-alarm burden are unknown.","All cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on assumed organizational scope, not observed prices or exact estimates."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No claim is made about novelty, prevalence, market position, or existing implementations. The sealed packet marks prior art as unsearched; targeted external research would be required before any distinctiveness claim."}