{"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__criminology_forensic","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"criminology_forensic","title":"Scope-Aware Unknown States for Digital-Forensic Software Analysis","opportunity_summary":"Assess whether one digital-forensic analyzer makes class-wide semantic claims about arbitrary software or converts timeout, unsupported, unresolved, or out-of-scope results into categorical NO, then test whether enforced scope, witnessed YES, explicit UNKNOWN states, and guarantee-aware routing reduce such outputs on synthetic non-case data.","adopter_authorizer":"A digital-forensic laboratory quality manager can authorize the bounded internal validation step; production evidentiary-use changes require the laboratory's competent authority and applicable court process.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preventing unsupported categorical conclusions could materially improve evidentiary validity and protect people whose cases depend on analyzer reports, although the frequency and realized case impact of the alleged failure are unestablished."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Examiners, quality managers, counsel, courts, and affected parties have clear interests in auditable uncertainty, but the packet contains no evidence of expressed demand, observed incidents, or willingness to adopt."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Scope contracts, explicit UNKNOWN states, witnessed outputs, and guarantee-aware routing directly address collapsed non-answers in a way that finite-sample validation alone does not; superiority in practice remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal identifies a conceptual distinction from conventional validation and error-rate reporting, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED and existing uncertainty or assurance controls may already implement much of it."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A synthetic one-analyzer test, output taxonomy, scope enforcement, and audit logging are technically bounded and reversible, though matching any impossibility proof to the actual tool and maintaining a sound abstraction may be difficult."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The laboratory quality manager is identified for an internal pilot, but production changes affecting evidentiary conclusions require additional laboratory authority and potentially court-governed processes."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The causal logic, falsifiers, safety limits, and synthetic pilot are specified, but problem occurrence, effectiveness, operational coding rules, and prior art are all unsupported by completed evidence."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Explicit UNKNOWN and out-of-scope states could prevent incomplete analysis from becoming a false NO while preserving witnessed YES results; misuse of UNKNOWN and misrouting remain consequential risks."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The taxonomy and routing concept could be reused across analyzers, but each tool, semantic claim, computation model, restricted fragment, proof obligation, and validation regime may require separate treatment."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A preregistered internal audit and synthetic non-case evaluation of one analyzer, including specification and interface review, test-corpus preparation, blinded coding, independent review, and a decision memo.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One laboratory and one analyzer are in scope.","Existing staff can access relevant specifications, interfaces, and validation records.","No live case conclusions or original evidence are changed.","A modest synthetic corpus is sufficient to exercise witnessed YES, timeout, unsupported, unresolved, and out-of-fragment states."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and validate a non-production prototype for one analyzer with scope contracts, explicit output states, routing rules, versioned audit records, reviewer procedures, and staff training.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The analyzer permits wrapping, configuration, or interface modification without rebuilding its core engine.","The laboratory already has basic validation and audit infrastructure.","Formal review is limited to the analyzer's actual claim and declared computation model.","Work remains outside live casework until separately authorized."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production qualification within one laboratory, including tool integration, expanded validation, quality-system changes, legal and disclosure review, documentation, training, rollback controls, and monitored rollout.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch covers a small number of analyzer workflows in one laboratory.","No major replacement of the underlying forensic platform is required.","Competent laboratory authority approves the evidentiary-use change.","Applicable court and disclosure requirements can be addressed through existing processes."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing version review, fragment and scope maintenance, regression testing, audit-log review, incident handling, refresher training, and revalidation after analyzer or policy changes.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment remains limited to one laboratory and a small tool portfolio.","Analyzer updates require periodic rather than continuous revalidation.","Existing quality personnel absorb part of the governance workload.","No major litigation or platform-replacement expense is included."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The evidentiary-overclaim mechanism is recognizable and falsifiable, but the packet provides no observational evidence that deployed forensic analyzers make the targeted universal claims or collapse unresolved states into NO."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies the laboratory quality manager as able to authorize an internal validation pilot and distinguishes the additional authority required for evidentiary-use changes."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can test whether scope enforcement and explicit routing reduce unsupported categorical outputs relative to the analyzer's current documented and observed behavior, with harmful misrouting as a counter-outcome."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A one-analyzer, synthetic non-case audit and test can be preregistered, independently reviewed, halted, and completed without changing live conclusions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step excludes live case changes, destructive testing, adverse interpretation of UNKNOWN, and unchecked impossibility claims, and it includes explicit halt and rollback conditions."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The one-analyzer pilot and one-laboratory rollout provide bounded implementation scopes for broad resource bands, although the estimates remain low-confidence without tool and laboratory details."}},"blocking_evidence":["No completed audit establishes that the targeted universal-claim or collapsed-output problem occurs in deployed practice.","No prespecified coding rule, baseline unit of analysis, or decision threshold is supplied for unsupported categorical outputs and consequential misrouting.","No matched proof establishes that a particular analyzer actually poses the unrestricted semantic decision problem described.","No comparative pilot shows that the proposed controls improve auditability or reduce unsupported conclusions without harmful routing errors.","Prior art in forensic validation, uncertainty reporting, abstention, and software-analysis assurance is unsearched."],"next_evidence_step":"Preregister and conduct a one-analyzer, synthetic non-case audit: code its specifications, interfaces, validation materials, and outputs using a fixed taxonomy for universal claims, witnessed YES, categorical NO, timeout, unsupported, unresolved, and out-of-fragment states; compare documented claims with observed behavior and blinded independent review. Stop or deprioritize if no total universal claim or conversion of non-answer into NO is found; otherwise quantify baseline label collapse before testing a prototype router.","research_questions":["Does the selected analyzer or its reporting workflow imply a terminating class-wide semantic verdict over arbitrary executables?","How are timeout, unsupported input, unresolved search, and out-of-fragment inputs represented in specifications, interfaces, and reports?","Can the target claim and computation model be stated precisely enough for an independently checked computability argument?","Which restricted fragments or finite bounds are exact, enforceable, and forensically faithful?","Relative to current behavior, do explicit UNKNOWN states and routing reduce unsupported categorical outputs without increasing consequential misrouting?","How do examiners, counsel, and courts interpret UNKNOWN, and what controls prevent it from being treated as adverse evidence?","Which existing validation or assurance practices already provide scope contracts, abstention states, checked impossibility claims, or guarantee-aware routing?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment; no external prevalence, prior-art, market, impact, or cost evidence was used.","Problem occurrence and consequence frequency are hypotheses rather than observations.","The transfer applies only to class-wide semantic analysis of arbitrary software, not finite evidence examination, measurement error, or probabilistic source attribution generally.","Technical feasibility depends on precisely matching the analyzer's actual claim, program class, computation model, and nontermination treatment.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on the stated scope, not quotations or point estimates.","Effectiveness and stakeholder demand cannot be inferred from the proposal's internal coherence."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The candidate declares prior art UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that scope contracts, abstention states, checked computability boundaries, or guarantee-aware forensic routing are novel, uncommon, or absent from existing practice."}