{"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__information_theory","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"information_theory","title":"Model-Relative Routing for Shortest-Description Claims","opportunity_summary":"Replace unconditional shortest-description and incompressibility labels with fixed-model, claim-scoped modes: YES with a witness, UNKNOWN at a stated budget, and exact results only for enforceable bounded classes. The immediate opportunity is to test whether this routing prevents timeout-derived negative claims while retaining useful compression evidence; actual problem prevalence and operational demand are unmeasured.","adopter_authorizer":"A compression-service product owner may authorize a bounded labeling pilot; the specification owner and an independent proof reviewer must approve the mathematical boundary and model contract.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Preventing unsupported optimality or incompressibility claims could materially improve research and downstream decision integrity, but the packet provides no evidence about how often such claims occur or how consequential current uses are."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Affected users, engineers, researchers, and automated systems are identified, but no stakeholder demand, adoption request, purchasing intent, or demonstrated dissatisfaction is supplied."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to timeout-based search and best-achieved-length benchmarking, the proposal adds a fixed model contract, witness-backed positive results, bounded exact modes, an explicit UNKNOWN state, and controls against converting search failure into an exact negative."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The mechanism composition is coherent and proposal-specific, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet cannot establish whether model-relative labeling, bounded routing, or UNKNOWN-preserving interfaces are distinctive."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A synthetic-corpus prototype, fixed decoder, bounded procedures, witness output, and label audit are technically bounded. Implementation still depends on correctly formalizing the decoder and enforcing restricted-class membership."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The product owner, specification owner, and independent proof reviewer have differentiated authority, and halt and rollback rules are stated. Feasibility is reduced by the need to preserve claim scope through downstream interfaces and logs."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet supplies a testable synthetic pilot, comparison baseline, falsifiers, and audit target, but the candidate remains a hypothesis without proof review, utility thresholds, incidence data, or pilot observations."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Explicit UNKNOWN outputs, bounded claim scopes, prohibited exact-negative uses, audit checks, and rollback to heuristic lengths directly limit the stated failure of presenting timeouts as proofs of incompressibility."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The routing pattern could apply across many queries using a fixed model, but each decoder, restricted class, bound, caller contract, and downstream renderer may require separate validation and enforcement."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Specify one fixed decoding model, independently review the boundary claim, build a non-live prototype on a finite synthetic corpus, compare it with timeout/best-so-far labeling, and audit outputs and logs for UNKNOWN-to-NO conversion.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The corpus and decoder specification can be created without paid proprietary data.","The prototype reuses an existing search or compression implementation.","One independent formal-methods reviewer and a small engineering effort are sufficient.","No consequential production decisions consume pilot outputs."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Integrate routed labels into one service, enforce bounded-class membership, version the decoder and bounds, update APIs and logs, add automated scope-preservation tests, and complete internal review and documentation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Only one service and a limited set of callers are in scope.","Existing infrastructure supports structured result states and versioned metadata.","No new specialized hardware or major compliance certification is required.","Downstream consumers can be updated without redesigning an enterprise-wide data model."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch across production callers with monitoring, migration of exact-sounding labels, reviewer sign-off, incident and rollback procedures, user documentation, and validation that consequential workflows do not treat UNKNOWN as negative.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Multiple downstream integrations require coordinated changes.","Formal and product reviews must be repeated for production specifications.","Launch includes training, telemetry, evaluation, and remediation of label leakage.","The scope remains one organization rather than an industry-wide standardization effort."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain model and bound versioning, regression audits, proof-specification alignment reviews, downstream label monitoring, support, and periodic utility and coverage evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The decoder and supported bounded classes change infrequently.","Monitoring can be incorporated into existing reliability and governance systems.","A fractional engineering, product-governance, and independent-review allocation is adequate.","No exact resource use or deployment scale is established by the packet."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet specifies an observable and auditable failure: an interface emits unconditional shortest-description or incompressibility labels from time-bounded search without a class-wide termination proof. Its real-world frequency remains unmeasured but is not needed to recognize the stated failure."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"A compression-service product owner can authorize the bounded pilot, while specification-owner approval and independent proof review govern the mathematical claim."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be tested against timeout/best-so-far labeling for whether fixed-model routing with witness, UNKNOWN, and bounded-exact states reduces unsupported exact-negative outputs without destroying operational utility."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A finite synthetic-corpus prototype is explicitly authorized, non-live, reversible, auditable, and has intervention falsifiers concerning unsupported claims, UNKNOWN utility, and proof validation."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet excludes consequential exact-negative deployment, assigns decision authority, and requires halting and rollback if the model is mismatched, UNKNOWN becomes NO, or bounded claims escape scope."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The initial prototype and prospective service integration are sufficiently bounded to assign broad resource-equivalent bands, although production scale and integration count remain uncertain."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether the actual operational requirement demands universal exact individual-string descriptions rather than achieved compression, expected code length, or an enforceable finite class.","Independent validation that the impossibility certificate formalizes the same decoder, representation, quantifiers, and guarantee used by the proposed interface.","Pilot evidence that witness and bounded-exact coverage is useful enough, and UNKNOWN rates are acceptable under predefined task-specific criteria.","Evidence that interfaces, logs, and downstream automated systems preserve model-relative scope and never render UNKNOWN as NO.","Evidence about the incidence and consequence of unsupported exact labels in the intended adopter's current workflow."],"next_evidence_step":"Run a non-live, finite synthetic-corpus study using one frozen decoder and declared bounds. Compare the current timeout/best-so-far interface with the routed YES-with-witness, UNKNOWN-at-budget, and bounded-exact interface on unsupported exact-negative rate, witness coverage, bounded completion, UNKNOWN handling, and label preservation in logs. Falsify progression if independent review finds a model mismatch, any UNKNOWN becomes NO, unsupported exact claims are not reduced, or predefined utility criteria are not met.","research_questions":["Is the real requirement universal exact shortest-description classification, or only achieved compression, expected code length, or classification within an effectively finite enforceable set?","Can an independent reviewer validate the boundary certificate against the exact decoder, representation, and quantifiers implemented by the service?","What minimum witness coverage, bounded-mode completion rate, and downstream task utility would justify adoption despite UNKNOWN outputs?","Can bounded-class membership and model versioning be enforced at every entry point without silent decoder or scope changes?","Where do current interfaces or downstream transformations convert search failure, timeout, or missing results into exact-negative language?","Does the routed interface measurably reduce unsupported exact claims compared with the existing heuristic interface?","What existing tools, interfaces, or governance patterns already implement the same mechanism composition?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment cannot establish prior art, novelty, prevalence, market size, stakeholder demand, realized impact, or exact cost.","The proposal may target the wrong problem if the operational requirement is finite, distributional, expected-value, or achieved-code compression.","Technical validity depends on alignment between the reviewed theorem and the implemented decoding model.","Operational benefit depends on UNKNOWN outputs retaining decision value and surviving downstream transformations.","Cost bands assume a limited organizational deployment because integration count, compliance context, and service scale are absent."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that the computability classification, witness/UNKNOWN/bounded routing, interface controls, or their composition is novel, uncommon, or commercially differentiated."}