{"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__literature_literary_theory","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"literature_literary_theory","title":"Bounded Validation and Abstention for Computational Literary Interpretation","opportunity_summary":"Assess whether digital-humanities systems make universal, exact interpretive-validity claims and, where they do, replace unsupported authority with enforceable claim grammars, checked formal guarantees, explicit UNKNOWN or out-of-scope routing, and human scholarly review. The candidate offers a well-bounded safety and evidence architecture, but the existence and prevalence of the targeted overclaim, the stability of the warrantedness predicate, and novelty remain unsupported.","adopter_authorizer":"Digital-humanities tool builders or institutions operating interpretive systems, with a joint scholarly-methods and formal-methods review group authorized to approve only a bounded pilot.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Preventing formal limitations or timeouts from being presented as refutations could protect scholarship, teaching, and represented communities, but the packet provides no evidence that universal validators are deployed or used consequentially."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies affected actors and possible institutional users but supplies no observed requests, complaints, adopter commitment, procurement signal, or evidence that stakeholders currently face the stated overclaim."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Compared with ordinary scholarly judgment or a calibrated acceptance classifier, enforceable scope, theorem-specific guarantees, and distinct UNKNOWN states directly address false claims of correctness and termination. The advantage remains conditional on finding systems that make those claims."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, and the packet establishes no distinction from existing digital-humanities governance, formal argumentation, abstention, or formal-hermeneutics approaches."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Finite-corpus enumeration, claim-grammar enforcement, derivation checking, and explicit abstention are technically plausible, but stabilizing a faithful truth-valued warrantedness predicate and producing a valid constructive procedure or impossibility proof may fail."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate identifies a joint scholarly and formal review authority, restricts automation from grading and publication decisions, and supplies concrete halt and rollback rules. No actual institution has accepted this authority structure."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet provides falsifiers, comparison targets, a finite-corpus protocol, and error-triggered stopping rules, but contains no empirical observations, formalized predicate, checked proof, or prior-art evidence."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"UNKNOWN routing, scope labels, human review, prohibited consequential uses, and rollback would reduce the chance that computational failure becomes an authoritative literary verdict. Formalization bias and unofficial elevation of the decidable fragment remain material risks."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The boundary-audit and abstention pattern could transfer across tools, but each corpus, interpretive rule system, encoding, historical context, and warrantedness definition may require substantial bespoke scholarly and formal work."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded problem-validation study of a pre-registered sample of candidate tool documentation and stakeholder accounts, followed by a small interdisciplinary feasibility review of one proposed claim grammar.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Relevant documentation and participants can be accessed without major licensing or contracting costs.","The study tests for universal exact claims before undertaking proof-intensive work.","Costs include scholarly, formal-methods, coordination, and analysis labor."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and independently review one finite-corpus pilot with enforceable input grammar, encoded derivations, UNKNOWN routing, guarantee records, and comparison against hand checking and a calibrated classifier.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The pilot remains advisory and cannot affect grading, publication, or cultural standing.","A usable formal predicate can be defined for one narrow task.","Existing general-purpose software infrastructure is adequate."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch a restricted institutional service with documented scope controls, interfaces, audit logging, independent scholarly and formal review, user training, governance, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Problem validation and the bounded pilot succeed.","Launch covers a limited number of corpora and claim grammars rather than literature generally.","Compliance, community consultation, accessibility, and partner coordination are included."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Maintain encodings, rules, guarantee records, reviews, monitoring, user support, revalidation after assumption changes, and human escalation for a limited operational program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Context and rule changes require recurring expert review.","The service retains explicit abstention and human adjudication.","The estimate excludes broad multilingual or cross-institutional expansion."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The overclaim is conceptually recognizable and has observable indicators, but the packet says systems may make it and supplies no documentation or stakeholder evidence showing that any actual system asserts universal exact adjudication."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Digital-humanities tool builders and institutions are identifiable adopters, while the candidate explicitly assigns bounded-pilot authority to a joint scholarly-methods and formal-methods review group."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can test whether enforceable fragments, guarantee labels, and UNKNOWN routing reduce false authoritative verdicts relative to a confidence-threshold classifier or current unsupported verdict behavior."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A pre-registered documentation and stakeholder audit can first test whether the universal overclaim exists, with explicit bounded-or-probabilistic positioning serving as the problem falsifier."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is non-consequential and bounded; automated grading, publication rejection, and cultural adjudication are excluded, with explicit halt and rollback conditions for encoding, proof, omission, or UNKNOWN-handling failures."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet bounds the pilot activities and governance but provides no staffing, corpus complexity, data-access, review-volume, integration, or operating assumptions sufficient to validate implementation ranges externally."}},"blocking_evidence":["Evidence that actual tools or institutions make universal, exact, terminating interpretive-validity claims rather than bounded or probabilistic claims.","Stakeholder evidence that the identified overclaim causes consequential confusion or decisions and that affected users want boundary controls.","A stable, faithfully encoded, truth-valued predicate for at least one narrow notion of warrantedness.","Independent checking of any claimed total procedure, correctness proof, or impossibility reduction.","Comparative evidence that scope enforcement and UNKNOWN routing reduce false authoritative verdicts relative to the nearest rival.","Prior-art evidence establishing whether the approach is materially distinct from existing formal, abstention, and digital-humanities governance methods."],"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register a small audit of candidate digital-humanities systems and institutional uses, comparing their documentation and observed output handling against the candidate's universal-claim indicators. Stop or reframe if the systems explicitly remain bounded or probabilistic, preserve disagreement, and never treat abstention as invalidity; only if the overclaim is observed should one system proceed to a finite-corpus formalization pilot.","research_questions":["Do any identifiable systems claim correctness and termination for every admitted literary text and interpretation?","How often do users or institutions mistake timeout, abstention, or model limitation for interpretive invalidity?","Can one narrow warrantedness predicate be formalized without erasing evidence that participants regard as essential?","Does the declared input grammar faithfully enforce the quantifiers and external-context assumptions used in the guarantee?","Can independent reviewers verify either a total correct procedure or a correctly directed impossibility reduction for the declared class?","Do explicit UNKNOWN routing and guarantee labels reduce false authoritative verdicts compared with a calibrated acceptance classifier?","Do users treat the decidable fragment as an unofficial definition of legitimate criticism despite the scope labels?","What existing systems or scholarship already provide materially similar formal boundaries, abstention, or interpretive-governance controls?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no evidence of problem prevalence, adopter demand, realized impact, market size, or world novelty.","All impact and adoption judgments are conditional on observing an actual universal exact claim.","Undecidability is not assumed; it requires a faithful formal predicate and independently checked proof.","Literary warrantedness may not admit a stable truth-valued formalization.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based only on the described scope, not vendor quotes or observed implementations.","Results from a finite corpus or formal language cannot support claims about literature generally."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The candidate labels prior art UNSEARCHED, and the sealed packet contains no comparative literature or implementation evidence. This assessment therefore makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, freedom to operate, or overlap with digital-humanities validation, formal argumentation, abstention systems, or formal hermeneutics."}