{"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__innovation_entrepreneurship","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"innovation_entrepreneurship","title":"Computability-Boundary Governance for Executable Venture Screening","opportunity_summary":"Replace an asserted universal Boolean venture-simulation guarantee with enforced decidable fragments, bounded or one-sided procedures, and explicit UNKNOWN or out-of-scope results. The candidate could prevent timeouts from becoming rejection signals, but it remains unverified whether relevant platforms actually admit unrestricted models, whether the restrictions retain useful submissions, or whether stakeholders want this intervention.","adopter_authorizer":"The venture-screening platform team is the adopter; its product owner may authorize an offline shadow pilot, while production guarantee changes require risk governance and independent proof approval.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Avoiding misleading rejection signals and wasted development effort could materially improve screening decisions, but the sealed candidate provides no evidence about occurrence frequency, decision volume, or realized harm."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Founders, investors, and platform staff have plausible interests in auditable screening, but the candidate contains no interviews, commitments, usage evidence, or demonstrated demand for computability-boundary governance."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Unlike the stated timeout-as-failure baseline and probabilistic nearest rival, the proposal directly tests the coherence of exact guarantees, enforces admission boundaries, and preserves UNKNOWN as distinct from NO. Its practical advantage depends on retaining decision-relevant models."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The domain transfer is conceptually specific, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED and the packet identifies novelty evidence as weak. Distinctiveness from existing verification and algorithmic-governance practices is therefore unsupported."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A frozen bounded corpus, membership checks, exact procedures for restricted fragments, and explicit routing labels are implementable in principle. Implementation becomes unfavorable if membership cannot be enforced, milestone semantics are unstable, or exhaustive procedures are impractical."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet identifies a product owner who can authorize a shadow pilot and specifies the additional governance and proof approval required for production. Feasibility remains conditional on obtaining those reviews."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal supplies a bounded offline test, explicit failure conditions, observable outputs, halt criteria, and a baseline behavior for comparison. It still needs a representative corpus and independently validated expected results."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Explicit UNKNOWN and out-of-scope states, prohibition of automatic rejection, human review, halt triggers, and rollback directly limit harm when an exact answer is unavailable or scope enforcement fails."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Routing and label contracts could be reused across submissions, but scalability is uncertain because restricted fragments may exclude important models and bounded exhaustive search may consume excessive computation."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Specify a frozen finite-state, bounded-horizon corpus; formalize milestone semantics; implement or configure exact checks and scope routing; compare outputs with validated expected results; and test label preservation offline.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A small platform team and formal-methods reviewer participate.","A usable bounded corpus can be assembled without purchasing extensive proprietary data.","The work remains offline and does not influence funding.","No novel verification engine or major infrastructure build is required."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Build enforceable model-language admission controls, exact and fallback routing, auditable result labels, interface changes, test infrastructure, independent proof review, and governance documentation for a limited deployment.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The existing platform is accessible and modifiable.","At least one useful decidable or bounded fragment is available.","Security, compliance, and integration work are moderate rather than enterprise-wide.","This band excludes rebuilding the underlying venture-screening platform."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production hardening, monitoring, reviewer workflows, user communication, staff training, staged rollout, evaluation, incident response, and approval of changed product guarantees.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is limited to one platform or business unit.","Human review remains available for UNKNOWN and out-of-scope cases.","No regulated funding authority requires a substantially larger certification program.","The shadow test validates correctness and enforceable membership before launch."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain scope classifiers and procedures, rerun proofs and regression tests after language or milestone changes, monitor label use, support human review, audit outcomes, and retain independent technical oversight.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Submission volume is moderate.","Most infrastructure is shared with the existing platform.","Model-language changes are occasional.","Recurring cost rises materially if UNKNOWN cases require extensive manual adjudication."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet gives a coherent observable failure mode—unrestricted executable inputs, universal Boolean promises, and timeout-based rejection—but provides no external evidence that an actual platform has this contract or that the problem occurs materially."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The platform team is the adopter, the product owner can authorize the specified offline shadow pilot, and risk governance plus independent proof approval are named for production changes."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that enforced bounded fragments and explicit fallback routing will preserve termination and correctness for exact modes while preventing timeout or UNKNOWN from being represented as NO, which is distinguishable from the stated baseline."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized offline test uses a frozen finite-state, bounded-horizon corpus and has explicit falsifiers covering exact-mode errors, nontermination, scope bypass, and UNKNOWN-to-NO collapse."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is offline, cannot influence funding, prohibits automatic rejection, and includes halt and rollback conditions. Production remains separately gated by governance and proof approval."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Broad resource-equivalent ranges can be scoped for a shadow test and staged implementation, but platform architecture, corpus availability, submission volume, proof complexity, and review requirements are unspecified."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether the actual accepted model language permits unrestricted computation or is already finite, bounded, and covered by a total algorithm.","Whether timeouts or exhausted searches are currently converted into rejection or predicted non-attainment in consequential workflows.","Whether a mechanically enforceable restricted fragment retains enough decision-relevant venture models to be useful.","Whether milestone semantics correspond to users' screening questions and can be independently validated.","Whether downstream users and systems reliably preserve UNKNOWN and out-of-scope labels rather than treating them as negative forecasts.","Whether bounded exact procedures terminate within operational resource limits on representative admitted instances."],"next_evidence_step":"Run the authorized offline shadow test on a frozen corpus containing admitted bounded instances, deliberately out-of-scope instances, and timeout-prone controls. Compare the current timeout-as-failure behavior with the proposed scope router against independently validated expected results; falsify the intervention if any exact-mode result is wrong or nonterminating, any out-of-scope input reaches exact mode, or any UNKNOWN is rendered or consumed as NO.","research_questions":["What executable language, horizon, milestone definition, and external capabilities does the current product actually admit?","Does the current requirement seek universal exact decisions, bounded analysis, or probabilistic forecasting?","Can fragment membership be checked mechanically and prevented from being bypassed?","What proportion and types of decision-relevant submissions remain inside useful decidable or bounded fragments?","Can independent reviewers validate the reduction, constructive deciders, and milestone semantics?","How do founders, investors, and downstream systems interpret UNKNOWN and out-of-scope outcomes?","What runtime and resource limits arise on representative bounded instances?","How does the proposal compare with existing simulation-verification, decision-governance, and venture-screening approaches?","Do restrictions or UNKNOWN outcomes disproportionately burden complex venture models?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no evidence of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, or historical novelty.","The strongest countercase is that every admitted model is already finite and mechanically bounded with a known total algorithm.","A computability result about encoded simulators does not establish that real-world venture success is undecidable.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not quotations, and depend heavily on existing platform architecture and formal-review needs.","Practical value may disappear if enforceable restrictions exclude most useful models or if UNKNOWN is operationally treated as rejection."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art was not searched and distinctiveness is not established. This assessment makes no claim about prevalence or novelty relative to simulation verification, formal methods, algorithmic decision governance, or venture-screening systems."}