{"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__history_historiography","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"history_historiography","title":"Decidable temporal-consistency checking with explicit UNKNOWN fallbacks","opportunity_summary":"Replace coerced Boolean verdicts for unrestricted executable historical models with an enforceable finite rule fragment, exhaustive checking inside that fragment, and witnessed inconsistency or explicit UNKNOWN elsewhere. The design could reduce false formal authority, but the packet does not establish that relevant systems actually make the alleged universal guarantee, that users demand this change, or that the fragment will cover routine scholarship at practical cost.","adopter_authorizer":"A repository's scholarly governance board and data stewards would authorize scope and public wording, with an independent methods reviewer authorizing formal guarantee claims.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Avoiding unsupported consistency verdicts could materially protect scholarly interpretation and represented communities, but the packet provides no evidence about the prevalence, frequency, or consequences of the stated checker behavior."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Relevant scholars, curators, and governance roles are named, but no adopter request, observed workflow failure, willingness to accept UNKNOWN, or demand evidence is supplied."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to timeout-coerced or heuristic Boolean checking, enforced admission, exhaustive within-fragment checking, witnessed contradictions, and explicit UNKNOWN provide a clear and testable improvement in claim discipline and auditability."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet cannot establish that fragment restriction, exhaustive model checking, or UNKNOWN fallbacks are distinctive in relevant systems."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A finite admitted fragment and exhaustive checker are technically plausible, but no concrete grammar, membership algorithm, semantics, scheduler, proof, or state-growth results are present; state explosion could make the approach impractical."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal assigns governance, steward, and independent-review responsibilities and defines rollback, but no actual repository, empowered board, approval process, or downstream enforcement mechanism is demonstrated."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate is explicitly a hypothesis with no completed fragment definition, reviewed proof, benchmark, adopter evidence, or prior-art assessment, although it supplies strong falsifiers and a safe test concept."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Explicit UNKNOWN, witnessed inconsistency, prohibited timeout coercion, version-linked guarantees, manual review, halt conditions, and verdict-publication rollback directly limit false authority without asserting historical truth."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"State-space explosion, fragment-specific proof obligations, evolving rule languages, governance review, and possible loss of historiographical expressiveness could impede reuse across repositories and research practices."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded problem audit for one candidate repository or checker, followed only if the claim exists by a small synthetic specification exercise comparing current Boolean/timeout behavior with restricted-fragment and UNKNOWN behavior.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["One repository or checker is examined.","No production records or public verdicts are used.","The work uses existing staff or short-term historian and formal-methods expertise.","The result is a decision memo and test specification, not a reviewed correctness proof."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Define a concrete rule grammar and semantics, implement enforceable membership and exhaustive checking, create provenance-linked outputs, conduct independent proof review, and integrate with one repository in non-public mode.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A narrow fragment is sufficient for an initial repository use case.","The host system exposes its rule representation and verdict pipeline.","No major archival-data migration is required.","Independent formal review and humanities governance participation are available."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Harden the checker, validate termination and correctness on approved cases, establish versioning and recheck triggers, train users, test downstream handling of UNKNOWN, and obtain governance approval for limited publication.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The prototype proof obligations close without redesign.","State growth is manageable for approved models.","Downstream systems can preserve UNKNOWN rather than coerce it.","Launch is limited to one institution and a bounded rule fragment."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain the checker and rule-language boundary, review changes, rerun affected models, monitor guarantee drift and output interpretation, and support governance and manual-review escalation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment remains limited to one repository or a small related set.","Rule-language changes are infrequent.","No continuous large-scale proof redevelopment is required.","Manual-review volume remains bounded."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"12_TO_36_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The alleged overbroad universal guarantee is coherent and falsifiable, but the sealed packet supplies no evidence that a real digital-history system accepts unrestricted rules and coerces timeout into Boolean verdicts."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies repository scholarly governance, data stewards, and an independent methods reviewer as the required authorization roles, even though no specific institution is named."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims exact termination and correctness only for enforced fragment members, with witnessed inconsistency or UNKNOWN outside that boundary; this can be compared against timeout-coerced and heuristic Boolean baselines."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A single-system claim audit and synthetic test set can determine whether the problem falsifier holds without live deployment or historical-truth claims."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is restricted to synthetic, non-public models, authority roles are stated, prohibited uses are explicit, and correctness, termination, proof-gap, and interpretation failures trigger halt and rollback."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Broad resource bands can be estimated, but the absent grammar, state-space characteristics, host architecture, integration surface, review process, and model volume prevent a supported implementation scope or tighter range."}},"blocking_evidence":["Evidence that at least one relevant system actually claims or operationally implies exact terminating Boolean consistency checking over an unrestricted rule class.","A concrete rule grammar, semantics, scheduler, decidable membership algorithm, and proof obligations for the proposed fragment.","Independent review showing correctness and termination for every admitted model under the declared computation model.","Benchmarks showing that routine research questions fit the fragment and that reachable-state growth remains practical.","Evidence that users and downstream systems understand and preserve UNKNOWN rather than coercing it into a Boolean decision.","Prior-art research sufficient to determine whether the proposed composition is already standard or available."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a four-to-six-week, non-deployment audit of one candidate checker: compare its documented input restrictions and timeout/output behavior with the packet's problem falsifier. Using only synthetic examples, include known consistent, contradictory, nonterminating or unbounded, and out-of-fragment models. Stop or deprioritize if the system already enforces a finite class, preserves UNKNOWN, and makes only bounded or instance-level claims; proceed to formal fragment specification only if unrestricted Boolean behavior is confirmed.","research_questions":["Does any identifiable digital-history system make the universal exact terminating claim described, either explicitly or through its interface behavior?","What concrete grammar and semantics admit a mechanically enforceable finite reachable state space?","Which routine historiographical modeling needs would the fragment exclude?","How does exhaustive-checking cost grow across representative synthetic models, and where does it become impractical?","Can an independent reviewer close the correctness, termination, and membership proofs without unstated assumptions?","Do interfaces, exports, and downstream workflows preserve UNKNOWN and witnessed scope limitations?","What relevant temporal-rule, model-checking, provenance, or historical-database approaches already exist?","Who has authority and resources to maintain guarantees when the rule language or scheduler changes?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment cannot establish prevalence, market size, realized harm, adopter demand, or novelty.","The named adopter and authorizer roles are generic rather than tied to a confirmed institution.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not quotations, and depend strongly on fragment complexity and host-system integration.","The 12-to-36-month horizon assumes a narrow single-repository implementation; proof failure, state explosion, or governance resistance could extend or end the effort.","Formal consistency applies only to the encoded reconstruction and cannot validate historical truth, narrative adequacy, archive completeness, or representational fairness."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched. This assessment makes no claim that the mechanism composition is novel, rare, commercially differentiated, or absent from digital-history systems, temporal rule engines, provenance systems, historical databases, or formal model-checking workflows."}