{"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__economics_finance","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"economics_finance","title":"Guarantee-labeled routing for programmable-contract solvency analysis","opportunity_summary":"Conditionally map the computability boundary of an exchange's admissible contract language, certify enforceable decidable fragments, and route analyses to exact, one-sided, bounded, or UNKNOWN outcomes. This could prevent unsupported solvency guarantees and futile verifier investment, but the sealed candidate does not establish unrestricted production expressiveness, a valid breach-preserving reduction, operational coverage, demand prevalence, or distinctiveness.","adopter_authorizer":"Exchange or clearinghouse risk committee as admission-policy owner, with independent formal-methods reviewers authorizing boundary and certificate claims.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Avoiding false approvals, false rejections, and investment in an impossible universal verifier could materially improve solvency screening, but the packet supplies no prevalence, baseline-error, exposure, or realized-impact evidence."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate names exchanges, clearinghouses, issuers, reviewers, and counterparties, but says operators may require the disputed verdict and provides no demonstrated requests, commitments, recurring incidents, or willingness to adopt UNKNOWN-bearing routing."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Certificate-backed guarantee labels and explicit UNKNOWN outputs offer a clear conditional advantage over forced Boolean verdicts and statistical risk ranking, but improvement over ordinary review has not been measured and may be offset by rejection or low coverage."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The combination is coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet provides no comparison against existing formal verification, restricted contract languages, certificate systems, or listing controls."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Language auditing, sandboxed analysis, certificate checking, and routing are technically bounded activities, while the indispensable production computation model, faithful financial-property encoding, reduction, and useful enforceable fragments remain unverified."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The exchange or clearinghouse risk committee is explicitly assigned admission authority, independent reviewers approve formal claims, and the candidate defines exclusions, halting conditions, and rollback; cross-party policy and workflow acceptance remain untested."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet proposes 30 synthetic contracts, a legacy comparator, certificate requirements, and concrete falsifiers, but the representation audit and checked proof must precede interpretation, and categorical-error definitions and acceptance thresholds are missing."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Exact, one-sided, bounded, and UNKNOWN labels directly preserve weaker but honest analysis when universal certification is unavailable, with an explicit prohibition on UNKNOWN-to-safe coercion and rollback after certificate failures."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A router and reusable fragment certificates could scale across contracts within a stable language version, but each language, oracle, collateral model, and rule change may require renewed proofs, and operational coverage of restricted modes is unknown."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Versioned representation audit, formalization of the collateral-breach property, attempted checked reduction or decidability proof, preregistered comparator and thresholds, and a sandboxed 30-contract synthetic evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A production-language specification and representative analyzer records can be accessed without major licensing or remediation work.","The first step uses existing proof and sandbox infrastructure rather than building production integrations.","Independent formal-methods review and risk-policy participation are included.","No live funds, listings, delistings, or order routing are involved."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Build and validate the guarantee-labeled router, certificate checking, enforceable fragment controls, audit records, reviewer interfaces, and limited integration with a single admission workflow.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The evidence step identifies at least one operationally useful analyzable fragment.","One contract language, one collateral policy family, and a limited set of price or oracle abstractions are in scope.","Existing review and identity systems can be integrated rather than replaced.","Security, compliance, model governance, and independent validation are included."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Production hardening across the selected exchange or clearinghouse workflow, including policy changes, systems integration, monitoring, staff training, adversarial testing, issuer guidance, incident response, and controlled rollout evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains limited to one institution and a bounded set of contract classes.","No wholesale redesign of the contract language, clearing platform, or market infrastructure is required.","UNKNOWN outcomes retain a staffed manual-review path.","External supervisors and clearing members require coordination but not a multi-jurisdiction platform rebuild."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Ongoing proof and certificate maintenance, language and oracle change review, monitoring, manual escalation, independent assurance, security upkeep, and periodic outcome evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The deployed scope remains institution-specific and operational volume is manageable.","Major language or collateral-policy revisions are treated as new projects rather than routine maintenance.","Manual review is required for UNKNOWN and out-of-scope cases.","No exact staffing, compute load, vendor pricing, or contract volume is supplied."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies forced Boolean verdicts, timeouts, unrestricted inputs, and unsupported guarantees as observable behaviors affecting solvency screening, although their prevalence remains unmeasured."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The exchange or clearinghouse risk committee is named as the admission-policy authority, with independent formal-methods reviewers assigned approval of boundary claims."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be compared with legacy review on categorical errors, certificate validity, UNKNOWN rates, rejection rates, and usable coverage; the continuation thresholds still need preregistration."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A non-live representation audit, checked proof attempt, and sandboxed comparison on 30 synthetic contracts can falsify both the computability premise and the proposed routing advantage."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the evidence step, live market actions and production funds are excluded, UNKNOWN cannot be labeled safe, independent proof review is required, and concrete certificate, scope, and promise failures trigger halt and rollback."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Broad resource bands can be estimated, but the packet does not specify production language complexity, integration architecture, contract volume, oracle model, staffing, compliance scope, or the fraction requiring manual escalation."}},"blocking_evidence":["A versioned audit establishing whether production-admissible contracts are finite and bounded or can express unrestricted computation.","A supplied and independently checked answer-preserving reduction between the relevant computation problem and collateral breach, or a constructive total analyzer proving the class decidable.","Evidence that the formal collateral, price, strategic-actor, nondeterminism, and oracle model faithfully represents the admission decision.","Preregistered definitions and thresholds for categorical errors, certificate validity, usable coverage, UNKNOWN rates, rejection rates, and continuation.","Evidence that enforceable restricted modes cover enough real contract demand to support an operational workflow.","A documented prior-art comparison against existing formal verification, restricted-language, certificate, and market-admission approaches."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a bounded, non-live study: freeze one actual admissible-language version and collateral/oracle model; audit its state, arithmetic, loops, horizons, and external inputs; then have an independent reviewer check either a total exact analyzer or an explicit breach-preserving reduction. Only if that boundary claim survives, preregister thresholds and compare the guarantee-labeled router with legacy verdicts on 30 synthetic finite-state, bounded-loop, and purportedly unrestricted contracts. Stop the undecidability branch if all admissible contracts form one finite decidable class, and stop the routing branch if any certificate fails, an out-of-scope input receives an exact label, or categorical-error and coverage thresholds are missed.","research_questions":["What exact language version, state space, arithmetic, execution horizon, nondeterminism, and oracle behavior define production-admissible contracts?","Can the candidate construct a total computable mapping whose collateral-breach answer is biconditionally equivalent to the source computation problem?","If the production class is decidable, are observed analyzer failures explained by complexity, capacity, abstraction, or implementation defects instead?","Which restrictions and promises are technically enforceable rather than merely declared by issuers?","What share and kinds of operationally relevant contracts fall into exact, one-sided, bounded, UNKNOWN, and rejected routes?","Relative to legacy review, how are false approval, false rejection, timeout, out-of-scope, and UNKNOWN outcomes defined and adjudicated?","What UNKNOWN and rejection rates can the admission workflow tolerate without converting uncertainty into de facto rejection?","How are boundary records and certificates invalidated after language, collateral-rule, price-input, or oracle changes?","Does an existing formal-verification or listing-control package already implement the proposed combination?","Who bears the cost and commercial consequences of manual escalation, delayed admission, and abstraction-driven rejection?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment: no external validation of prior art, prevalence, market size, stakeholder demand, realized impact, or costs was performed.","The central computability claim is conditional because production-language expressiveness and the proposed reduction are absent.","The analogy may fail if strategic behavior, stochastic prices, and external data cannot be encoded faithfully while preserving the breach answer.","Operational advantage depends on unprovided baseline error rates and acceptance thresholds.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not quotations or point estimates.","The earliest horizon covers credible boundary evidence and a sandboxed comparison, not production deployment."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that guarantee-labeled routing, decidable contract fragments, certificate-backed solvency analysis, or equivalent market-admission controls are novel, rare, or absent."}