{"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__law_governance","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"law_governance","title":"Boundary Mapping for Unbounded Automated Legal-Compliance Mandates","opportunity_summary":"Evaluate whether an automated legal-compliance mandate makes an unsupported universal accuracy-and-termination promise, then restrict exact automation to enforceable fragments while preserving explicit UNKNOWN and accountable human review. The proposal is well bounded for sandbox evidence, but the existence and prevalence of qualifying mandates, stakeholder demand, real-world incremental benefit, and distinctiveness remain unsupported.","adopter_authorizer":"A rulemaking or procuring public body is the prospective adopter; the legally empowered agency or court retains substantive authority, while an independent technical-legal review panel may approve only the stated computational guarantee.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the specified universal mandate exists, authoritative-looking false determinations could affect regulated parties, applicants, and enforcement subjects, while consuming public resources. The sealed record does not establish how often such mandates occur or how many decisions they affect, preventing a top score."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies affected parties, system operators, public bodies, courts, and reviewers, and it addresses reviewability and deceptive guarantees. It provides no evidence that any public body currently recognizes the problem, seeks this intervention, or would allocate resources to it."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Relative to conventional rules software with ad hoc timeout handling, the proposal adds explicit class boundaries, parallel constructive and impossibility review, enforceable fragment membership, UNKNOWN handling, and versioned guarantees. Its advantage remains uncertain because ontology and policy clarification plus ordinary assurance may be sufficient when the obstacle is semantic ambiguity rather than solvability."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet establishes no differentiation from legal expert systems, computational-law governance, formal-methods procurement, or administrative review practices."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Formalizing and exhaustively testing one finite nonbinding fragment appears technically bounded, and the proposal supplies halt conditions. Faithful representation of legally material facts, interpretations, changing law, fragment membership, and a valid scoped reduction may be difficult or impossible for a given task."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate identifies the legally empowered agency or court as substantive authority, limits a review panel to computational guarantees, excludes rights-affecting first-step actions, and provides rollback to the established human process. Actual procurement authority, institutional willingness, and review-panel arrangements are not evidenced."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal supplies problem and intervention falsifiers, negative tests, an explicit nearest rival, and a safe sandbox procedure. It remains a hypothesis without a selected operative mandate, stable formal decision problem, corpus, constructive witness, or independently reviewed reduction."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Explicit UNKNOWN states, accountable human review, prohibition on adverse treatment of timeouts, enforceable scope limits, guarantee labels, and rollback materially improve the baseline safety net. Benefits depend on labels surviving downstream interfaces and human escalation remaining timely and accountable."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The boundary-mapping workflow and versioning pattern could be reused across programs, but each legal fragment may require jurisdiction-specific formalization, proof review, membership enforcement, maintenance, and renewed analysis when laws or assumptions change."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Formalize one nonbinding rule fragment and decision property; compare boundary mapping with ontology and policy clarification plus ordinary assurance; independently review constructive and reduction obligations; and exhaustively test a finite synthetic corpus.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A narrow fragment and relevant legal materials can be selected without paid large-scale data acquisition.","Work requires legal-domain, formal-methods, software-testing, and independent-review labor.","No live determinations, production integration, or rights-affecting evaluation occurs."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Build and validate a limited prototype for one reviewed fragment, including mechanically enforced fragment membership, UNKNOWN routing, guarantee labeling, version control, audit records, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The fragment proves suitable after first evidence.","Existing rules software and human-review workflows offer usable integration points.","The scope remains one program or decision family and excludes automatic adverse action."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Prepare a rights-sensitive public-body operation through production integration, security and compliance review, staff training, independent assurance, interface safeguards, escalation capacity, monitoring, and rollback exercises.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is limited to reviewed fragments rather than the original open-ended mandate.","The public body must support administrative review, accessibility, records, and vendor coordination.","Substantive decisions remain under legally empowered human or institutional authority."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Maintain formalizations and software, monitor scope enforcement and label preservation, review law and assumption changes, audit UNKNOWN escalation, retrain staff, and periodically revalidate guarantees.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Operation covers a limited number of fragments within one public body.","Material legal or technical changes trigger renewed review rather than silent expansion.","Human-review capacity is included but large litigation or adjudication costs are excluded."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate describes an observable specification defect—universal correctness and termination without language, model, or indeterminate-case boundaries—and identifies concrete failure modes and affected objectives. External evidence is still required to establish prevalence."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"A rulemaking or procuring public body is identifiable as adopter, and the legally empowered agency or court is explicitly assigned substantive authority."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The testable claim is that boundary mapping, compared with ontology and policy clarification plus ordinary software assurance, will identify or change an unsupported totality, scope, fallback, guarantee, or complexity transition."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate authorizes a sandboxed, nonbinding study of one rule fragment using independent argument review and a finite synthetic corpus, with no live legal determinations."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"Substantive authority remains with empowered institutions; adverse automation and treating UNKNOWN as noncompliance are excluded; and proof gaps, unenforceable membership, lost labels, or possible effects on rights require halt and rollback."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The sandbox scope is bounded, but the candidate does not specify a jurisdiction, operative rule set, system architecture, integration environment, case volume, review capacity, or production assurance requirements needed to validate implementation costs."}},"blocking_evidence":["No operative public-body mandate has been presented to show that the hypothesized unbounded specification exists rather than a bounded or merely ambiguous requirement.","The actual input class, legal query, encoding, computation model, quantifiers, and decision property have not been fixed.","No evidence shows whether a known uniform correct terminating procedure already covers the operative requirement.","No faithful constructive witness or scoped impossibility reduction has received independent technical-legal review.","No adopter evidence establishes demand, procurement authority, acceptable UNKNOWN handling, or capacity for accountable human escalation.","Prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness and incremental differentiation cannot be established.","Production architecture, integration scope, decision volume, compliance obligations, and maintenance cadence are unspecified, leaving cost bands weakly grounded."],"next_evidence_step":"Run a nonbinding sandbox study on one selected rule fragment: formalize its mechanically enforceable input class and decision property, have separate reviewers assess a candidate total procedure and any scoped impossibility reduction, and exhaustively test a finite synthetic corpus. Compare results with ontology and policy clarification plus ordinary software assurance. Falsify the problem if the operative class is bounded and already has a demonstrated uniform correct terminating procedure; falsify the intervention if boundary mapping changes no guarantee, scope, fallback, unsupported-totality claim, or complexity transition. Issue no live legal determinations.","research_questions":["Does a specific operative mandate actually require correct termination over an open-ended rule language, or is its input class bounded and mechanically enforceable?","Can the selected legal task be faithfully represented as a stable formal decision problem without omitting legally material facts, interpretation, or institutional authority?","Does independent review validate a total constructive procedure, a properly scoped impossibility reduction, neither, or both under different fragments?","Compared with ontology and policy clarification plus ordinary assurance, does boundary mapping materially change the guarantee, supported scope, fallback behavior, or reviewability?","Can fragment membership, UNKNOWN labels, downstream display, human escalation, auditability, and rollback be enforced throughout the operational workflow?","Which existing computational-law, formal-assurance, procurement, and administrative-review approaches overlap with or distinguish this composition?","What program-specific integration, compliance, staffing, data-access, and maintenance requirements determine credible implementation costs?","Will the legally empowered adopter accept explicit UNKNOWN outcomes and fund timely, accountable human review without converting escalation into an untracked oracle?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book evaluation provides no evidence of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, prior art, or world novelty.","Impact estimates are conditional on a qualifying unbounded mandate actually being used for consequential legal determinations.","Computability conclusions cannot be inferred from timeouts, failed implementation, semantic ambiguity, or incomplete proof search.","Any constructive or impossibility result applies only to its fixed language, representation, computation model, quantifiers, and preserved legal assumptions.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on assumed scopes, not externally validated estimates.","Scalability is constrained by jurisdiction-specific law, disputed facts, interpretation, changing rules, and the need to revalidate boundaries."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art was not searched. This assessment makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, competitive differentiation, market size, realized impact, or whether equivalent legal-computability governance practices already exist."}