{"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__cognitive_science","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"cognitive_science","title":"Guarantee-Labeled Equivalence Routing for Executable Cognitive Models","opportunity_summary":"Evaluate a methods-layer router that separates exact equivalence within an enforceable finite fragment, bounded agreement, witnessed inequivalence, out-of-scope cases, and unresolved cases. The opportunity is to prevent finite benchmark agreement or search exhaustion from being presented as universal equivalence, but its central unrestricted computability boundary remains hypothetical until the model language, observational semantics, and reduction are formally checked.","adopter_authorizer":"The study's designated methods lead, with approval of the representation contract and proof obligations by an independent formal-methods reviewer; broader scientific claims remain subject to normal review.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Preventing unsupported interchangeability claims and wasted analyzer development could materially improve model-comparison integrity, but the sealed candidate provides no evidence about how often universal equivalence is demanded or misreported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Relevant stakeholders and an authorizing role are named, but no stakeholder requests, workflow observations, adoption commitments, or evidence of dissatisfaction with bounded benchmark claims are supplied."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to finite benchmarks or enlarged randomized testing, enforced class membership, replayable exact certificates, witness retention, and explicit UNKNOWN labels provide a clear testable improvement in claim calibration, conditional on correct semantics and useful fragment coverage."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The combination is coherently specified, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED and the packet supplies no basis for claiming that guarantee labels, restricted equivalence checking, or differential witness search are distinctive in cognitive-model tooling."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A synthetic router and finite-fragment checker appear buildable, while the exact fragment, observational semantics, certificate system, state-space feasibility, and unrestricted reduction are all unresolved."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate identifies a methods lead, requires independent formal review, limits the first step to synthetic pairs, and preserves normal scientific review; feasibility falls short of 5 because reviewer access and downstream label enforcement are unverified."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate supplies falsifiers, a 20-pair synthetic comparison, retained witnesses, and halt criteria, but lacks the fragment grammar, language specification, formal reduction, representative case construction, and predeclared utility thresholds needed to execute a decisive evaluation."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"UNKNOWN and OUT-OF-SCOPE states, replayable certificates, synthetic-only evaluation, prohibited consequential uses, and rollback to bounded observations create a strong epistemic safety net, though an incorrectly formalized prediction semantics could still produce misleading confidence."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"State-space explosion, potentially low fragment coverage, frequent UNKNOWN outcomes, semantics changes, and independent proof review could constrain use across model families; no throughput or coverage evidence is supplied."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Specify one candidate finite fragment and trace semantics, implement membership and certificate replay, construct 20 synthetic model pairs, compare router labels with the ordinary benchmark baseline, and obtain independent formal-methods review.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The work uses synthetic models and existing general-purpose computing resources.","A small team combines cognitive-modeling, formal-methods, and evaluation expertise.","The step does not attempt production integration or proof of broad scientific usefulness.","No unusually expensive proprietary model corpus or regulated participant data is required."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Convert a validated prototype into a research-grade service or library with stable representation contracts, automated fragment enforcement, certificate storage and replay, documentation, workflow integration, security review, and user testing.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment is limited to research model-comparison workflows.","At least one useful fragment and comparator have passed synthetic evaluation.","Integration spans multiple modeling tools or laboratories rather than a single script.","Human methods review remains required for exact-claim authorization."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch across a bounded multi-project or multi-laboratory research program, including onboarding, model adapters, governance, reviewer coordination, monitoring for label collapse, evaluation, and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["No clinical, educational, personnel, or participant-level decision use is introduced.","Several model representations require adapters but not complete reimplementation.","The declared semantics and fragments are stable enough for a controlled launch.","State-space demands remain within conventional institutional compute capacity."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain comparators and adapters, recheck boundaries after language or semantics changes, retain and replay certificates, monitor label use, support researchers, and conduct periodic independent review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Adoption remains bounded to a research program.","Model-language changes are occasional rather than continuous.","No large dedicated compute cluster or full-time compliance organization is required.","Frequent new fragments or proof obligations would raise the band."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate identifies an observable and falsifiable claim-integrity problem: finite agreement, timeout, or unsuccessful search can be issued as universal equivalence without a declared class, horizon, totality argument, or UNKNOWN state."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The study's designated methods lead is identified as the label authorizer, conditional on approval of the representation contract and proof obligations by an independent formal-methods reviewer."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The router can be compared with the finite-benchmark baseline on whether it reduces unsupported equivalence labels while emitting no false exact verdicts and mechanically rejecting out-of-fragment models."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate authorizes a synthetic-only evaluation of 20 model pairs, with enforced fragment classification, baseline comparison, retained witnesses and UNKNOWN outcomes, and explicit failure conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The bounded synthetic study excludes consequential decisions and published-model relabeling, names the required reviewers, and provides halt and rollback conditions; the unresolved theorem blocks stronger claims but does not prevent this safe evidence step."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"A broad resource range can be estimated for the proposed evaluation, but the candidate does not specify the fragment, toolchain, model adapters, proof effort, reviewer availability, compute demand, or coverage target needed to establish a reliable implementation range."}},"blocking_evidence":["A declared cognitive-model language and observational semantics that make the universal quantifiers and treatment of nontermination precise.","A total computable halting-to-equivalence encoding with an independently checked answer-preservation argument, or evidence that the intended language cannot support that reduction.","A mechanically enforceable finite-fragment grammar, total and correct comparator, and replayable certificate format.","Synthetic evaluation showing no false exact verdicts, reliable rejection of out-of-class models, and fewer unsupported equivalence labels than the benchmark baseline.","Coverage, unresolved-rate, and computational-cost results indicating that the fragment is scientifically useful rather than routinely bypassed.","Stakeholder evidence that intended users actually encounter or demand universal equivalence claims rather than consistently bounded comparisons.","Prior-art research sufficient to evaluate distinctiveness without inferring novelty from the sealed description."],"next_evidence_step":"With a cognitive-modeling methods lead and an independent formal-methods reviewer, predeclare acceptance thresholds and evaluate 20 synthetic model pairs spanning admitted, rejected, equivalent, and witness-distinguishable cases. Compare the router with the ordinary finite-benchmark baseline on unsupported-equivalence labels, false exact verdicts, fragment-enforcement errors, certificate replay, coverage, and UNKNOWN rate. Falsify utility if it fails to reduce unsupported labels, emits any false exact verdict, or cannot mechanically enforce the fragment; do not use the exercise to authorize an unrestricted impossibility claim.","research_questions":["What executable model language, stimulus histories, observation function, randomness semantics, and nontermination treatment do intended users actually employ?","Do those syntax and semantics support a total computable halting-to-equivalence reduction with preserved answers?","What finite fragment admits mechanical membership checking and a total, correct comparator without excluding most scientifically relevant models?","How often do relevant projects make universal equivalence claims rather than explicitly bounded agreement claims?","Against the benchmark baseline, how much does the router reduce unsupported equivalence labels, and does it ever issue a false exact verdict?","What fragment coverage, UNKNOWN rate, witness quality, certificate-replay reliability, and runtime arise on representative synthetic cases?","Will methods leads and independent reviewers accept the representation contract, proof obligations, and authority boundaries?","What existing methods or tools already implement comparable guarantee labels, fragment checking, equivalence certificates, or witness search?","How sensitive are verdicts to alternative observational semantics, and can encoding artifacts be separated from theoretically meaningful differences?","At what state-space size does the declared decidable fragment become operationally unusable?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, realized impact, market size, and adoption willingness are not measured in the sealed packet.","The unrestricted undecidability diagnosis is a hypothesis until the language, semantics, encoding, and preservation proof are independently checked.","The actual model language may already be finite-state with a fixed finite stimulus set and horizon, which would displace the proposed unrestricted-boundary diagnosis.","Operational feasibility depends on fragment coverage, UNKNOWN frequency, certificate correctness, and state-space growth, none of which are measured.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on the stated work scope, not observed bids or exact estimates.","The scientific meaning of a distinguishing trace depends on the representation contract and may be an encoding artifact.","No inference is made from formal model equivalence to facts about human cognition."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, existing cognitive-model comparison systems, realized impact, market size, or whether equivalent formal-methods patterns have already been published or deployed."}