{"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__disaster_management","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"disaster_management","title":"Guarantee-Labeled Boundary Mapping for Disaster-Response Policy Assurance","opportunity_summary":"Classify the computability boundary of a declared disaster-response policy language, mechanically enforce any decidable fragment, and preserve UNKNOWN and scope labels instead of coercing inconclusive analyses into universal safe/unsafe verdicts. The candidate offers a bounded offline falsification pilot, but whether authorities actually accept expressive unbounded policies or make unrestricted assurance claims remains unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"An emergency-management authority is the adopter and approval authority; its technical reviewers may classify formal guarantees, while incident commanders and planners remain responsible for operational policy decisions.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If unqualified formal verdicts influence disaster plans, false assurance or rejection could affect responders and residents and waste substantial analyzer-development effort. The consequence is high stakes, although the frequency and operational prevalence of the stated failure are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies an emergency-management authority with a trustworthy-assurance objective and describes downstream harms, but supplies no evidence that an authority currently experiences the observable failure, seeks this workflow, or will tolerate UNKNOWN outputs and restricted policy forms."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to timeout coercion and runtime-only optimization, mechanically enforced fragments, explicit scope labels, independent evidence checking, and preservation of UNKNOWN directly address false universal assurances. The advantage depends on the baseline actually being used and on fallbacks producing operationally useful results."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The combination of computability classification, enforced fragments, and guarantee-labeled routing is coherent and potentially differentiating in this domain, but prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness cannot be established closed-book."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A finite synthetic bounded pilot and label-preserving workflow appear implementable, but faithful policy semantics, a valid impossibility reduction, enforceable fragment membership, useful abstraction, and downstream label retention are unresolved technical dependencies."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The emergency-management authority and limits on technical-reviewer authority are explicit, and the proposed first step is offline, reversible, and does not automate live plan approval. Feasibility could fall if multiple jurisdictions, vendors, or mutual-aid partners control the relevant language and interfaces."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate provides observable failure modes, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, halt conditions, and a bounded comparison pilot. It remains a hypothesis with no field observations, corpus characterization, validated semantics, theorem, or prior-art evidence."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Preserving UNKNOWN, declaring bounds and model scope, prohibiting operational automation, independently checking evidence, and reverting to advisory-only human review provide strong safeguards against overclaiming formal results."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The routing pattern and guarantee labels could be reused, but each policy-language version, incident model, property, quantifier set, and interface change may require renewed classification, validation, and organizational enforcement."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Offline characterization and falsification pilot for one versioned policy language, one formal safety property, a finite synthetic policy set, and a fixed trace bound, including semantics review, bounded checking, abstraction comparison, label-flow testing, and reviewer validation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The authority can provide knowledgeable policy and incident-model reviewers.","No live operational system or sensitive production data is required.","Existing formal-analysis software can be adapted rather than built from scratch.","The synthetic corpus and one property are small enough for a short specialist engagement."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Build a non-operational assurance service for the validated input class, including fragment-membership enforcement, exact and fallback routing, evidence checking, versioning, audit records, user-interface labels, integration testing, and governance procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Startup covers one authority, one policy-language family, and a limited property set.","The pilot establishes stable semantics and at least one useful supported mode.","Existing identity, audit, and policy-management infrastructure can be integrated.","Independent formal-methods review and accessibility-oriented interface review are included."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Controlled organizational launch with production-grade reliability, security and compliance review, planner training, downstream label preservation, incident-management integration, monitoring, independent validation, and staged acceptance across relevant teams and partners.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains decision support and does not automatically activate or reject plans.","Multiple downstream systems and partner workflows require coordination.","Operationally important policy constructs fit a validated fragment or useful fallback.","No specialized safety certification regime or extensive custom hardware is required."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Annual specialist staffing, software and infrastructure, audits, model and language revalidation, policy-corpus testing, training, incident review, vendor coordination, and maintenance of guarantee labels and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One authority operates the service at moderate scale.","Policy languages, incident models, and properties change periodically but not continuously.","Recurring independent review is required after material semantic or interface changes.","Costs exclude a major redesign caused by a failed computability classification or unusable fragment."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate specifies a recognizable operational failure: timeouts or inconsistent analyses are converted into unqualified safe/unsafe outputs without distinguishing bounds, abstractions, or unsupported inputs. Its actual prevalence remains to be measured, but the problem itself is externally testable."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The emergency-management authority is explicitly identified as the approval authority, with technical reviewers limited to classifying guarantees rather than certifying real-world operational safety."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that enforced input classification, strongest-justified analysis routing, and preserved UNKNOWN and scope labels will reduce mislabelled universal assurances relative to timeout coercion or runtime-only optimization; the offline pilot can test that claim."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate authorizes an offline pilot limited to one versioned language, one safety property, a finite synthetic policy set, and a fixed trace bound, with comparisons among exact bounded results, abstraction results, and UNKNOWN rates."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is offline, the authority retains approval, live activation and rejection are excluded, and explicit halt and rollback conditions address missed counterexamples, lost labels, unenforceable membership, and invalidated theorem claims."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate bounds the pilot technically but provides no staffing, system-integration, data-access, compliance, jurisdictional, or maintenance evidence. Resource bands therefore depend on assumptions about existing tooling, language complexity, and partner count."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether accepted policies and incident traces are already mechanically bounded and effectively enumerable, which would falsify the central unrestricted-computability premise.","Whether any emergency-management authority currently makes or relies on an exact, always-terminating universal assurance claim rather than a bounded scenario claim.","A stable formal semantics for the selected policy language, incident-transition model, safety property, and quantifiers.","A reviewer-validated constructive analyzer or valid impossibility reduction for the declared class, without overextending the result to physical incidents.","Evidence that the supported exact fragment retains operationally important adaptive policy forms and that fallback outputs are useful at acceptable latency.","Evidence that UNKNOWN, bounds, abstraction status, and scope labels survive every downstream interface and organizational handoff.","Prior-art evidence sufficient to assess whether the workflow is distinctive or already standard practice."],"next_evidence_step":"With one willing emergency-management authority, run the authorized offline pilot on one frozen policy-language version, one formal safety property, a finite synthetic policy set, and a fixed trace bound. Compare exact bounded checker results against abstraction outputs and routed UNKNOWN labels, and test downstream label retention. Stop or reject the intervention if abstraction misses any bounded counterexample, fragment membership cannot be mechanically enforced, guarantee labels are lost, the exact fragment excludes important policy forms, or fallbacks yield no useful certified result at acceptable latency.","research_questions":["Are all policies and incident traces accepted by the target authority already mechanically bounded and effectively enumerable?","Does the authority or any downstream system currently interpret timeouts, abstractions, or bounded results as universal safe/unsafe assurance?","Can the selected policy language and incident-transition model be given stable, reviewable semantics?","For the declared class, can reviewers validate either a total analyzer or a sound impossibility reduction?","Which operationally important adaptive constructs fall outside the exact fragment?","What proportion of the finite pilot set receives exact, abstracted, UNKNOWN, or out-of-scope results, and at what latency?","Can interfaces and governance controls preserve guarantee labels under realistic handoffs and organizational pressure?","Does existing practice or prior art already provide equivalent boundary classification and guarantee-labeled routing?","What staffing, integration, compliance, training, and recurring revalidation resources would a specific authority require?"],"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment: no external validation of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, prior art, realized impact, market size, or exact cost.","The central premise is conditional on an expressive, potentially unbounded policy language and a universal exact terminating assurance requirement.","Formal conclusions apply only to the encoded policy-transition model and cannot establish the intrinsic computability or real-world safety of physical disasters.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on stated scope assumptions, not observed procurements or point estimates.","Score confidence is limited by hypothesis-stage evidence and the absence of an actual authority, policy corpus, semantics, or analyzer implementation."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly UNSEARCHED and world novelty is unmeasured. This assessment makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, existing formal-verification products, emergency-management practice, or whether equivalent computability-boundary and guarantee-labeling workflows are already deployed."}