{"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__logistics_supply_chain","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"logistics_supply_chain","title":"Enforceable Fulfillment-Policy Analysis Boundary with Honest Fallback Routing","opportunity_summary":"The candidate conditionally replaces a universal Boolean fulfillment-policy analyzer with a formally delimited exact fragment, explicit UNKNOWN or out-of-scope labels, and governed fallback routing. This could reduce false assurance and misclassification, but the deployed language, operational bounds, analyzer behavior, policy coverage, stakeholder demand, and distinctiveness are not established in the sealed evidence.","adopter_authorizer":"The supply-chain platform product owner, subject to operations-risk approval and independent methods review; local operators retain shipment-hold authority.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"False clearance, false rejection, stranded orders, excess buffers, and misleading assurance would be meaningful, but the candidate provides no evidence that the promised universal analysis or resulting failures occur materially in a deployed platform."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Policy authors, operators, customers, and compliance teams have plausible interests in reliable guarantees, yet no incidents, requests, adoption commitments, or willingness to change workflows are supplied."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Enforced fragment membership, explicit UNKNOWN, and governed routing directly improve on Boolean timeout handling and compute-only optimization in concept, but no comparative evidence shows fewer mislabeled outcomes, lower proof burden, or useful policy coverage."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is internally coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the elements—restricted languages, bounded analysis, abstraction, tri-state results, and escalation—could already be established practices."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A non-production formalization and bounded-fragment checker appear feasible, while faithful operational semantics, enforceable membership, sound abstraction, external-actor modeling, and usable performance remain unresolved."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate identifies a platform product owner, required operations-risk and independent-methods approvals, retained operator authority, excluded actions, and rollback conditions; actual organizational willingness is still unknown."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate supplies a non-production corpus study, baseline comparison, problem and intervention falsifiers, negative tests, and halt criteria, although measurements and decision thresholds still need predefinition."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Preserving UNKNOWN, prohibiting timeout coercion, limiting claims to checked fragments, retaining human approval, and reverting to advisory-only output directly reduce false-assurance risk even if exact universal analysis is unattainable."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The boundary-and-routing pattern could extend across policies, but each language or assumption change requires renewed formalization, and complexity, fragment coverage, external actors, and downstream label preservation may constrain scale."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Non-production inventory and formalization of one rule-language version, construction of a bounded policy corpus and fragment checker, baseline comparison, label-retention checks, and independent methods review.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["One platform and one language version are examined.","Existing engineers and policy examples are available for limited interviews and corpus preparation.","No live shipment decisions or production integration are included.","The study tests bounded claims rather than completing a general impossibility proof."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Build and integrate an enforceable fragment-admission layer, explicit result labels, fallback router, audit records, monitoring, test harnesses, documentation, and approval controls for an initial platform deployment.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The pilot establishes a useful admitted fragment and sound abstraction.","One principal analyzer and a limited number of downstream interfaces are involved.","Existing identity, logging, and human-approval systems can be reused.","No major rule-language redesign or physical-equipment change is required."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Production hardening, broader policy and interface validation, downstream label-preservation work, compliance review, operator training, staged rollout, incident procedures, and evaluation across operational workflows.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch spans a substantial supply-chain platform but not an industry-wide network.","Multiple operational teams and external-service integrations require coordination.","Soundness and fragment-coverage findings justify production preparation.","Existing fulfillment systems remain the execution substrate."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Ongoing methods review, regression and conformance testing, policy-language change analysis, monitoring, audit support, corpus maintenance, operator support, and periodic guarantee recertification.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One deployed platform is maintained.","Language and environment changes occur regularly but do not require annual wholesale redesign.","Specialist formal-methods and platform-engineering labor remains necessary.","Recurring scope excludes major expansion to new platforms or language families."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate identifies observable timeout handling, scope narrowing, cycling, and mislabeled outcomes, but explicitly treats the deployed language, universal promise, and operational diagnosis as hypotheses requiring platform evidence."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The platform product owner is named as the decision authority, with operations-risk approval, independent methods review, and retained local shipment-hold authority."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"On a bounded non-production corpus, the fragment and router can be compared with the Boolean baseline for mislabeled outcomes, guarantee fidelity, proof obligations, label retention, and admitted-policy coverage."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized first step fixes one language version, uses a non-production corpus, tests a bounded fragment, compares against the baseline, and includes problem and intervention falsifiers."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The evidence step excludes live release or cancellation, timeout coercion, claims beyond checked bounds, and undeclared oracles, with explicit halt and advisory-only rollback conditions."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Broad resource-equivalent ranges can be scoped conditionally, but interface count, corpus availability, language complexity, proof difficulty, deployment breadth, and partner coordination are absent from the sealed candidate."}},"blocking_evidence":["The actual grammar, operational semantics, state and queue bounds, event horizon, external-response model, and computational capabilities of the deployed policy language.","The current analyzer's declared correctness and termination obligations, timeout behavior, scope restrictions, and evidence that outcomes are being misinterpreted operationally.","A representative non-production corpus with predefined categories for false Boolean labels, unresolved cases, policy coverage, analysis cost, and operational relevance.","Independent confirmation that fragment membership is enforceable and that the abstraction or exact procedure preserves the stated fulfillment-safety property.","Evidence that UNKNOWN and scope labels survive every relevant downstream interface and trigger accountable escalation rather than Boolean coercion.","Stakeholder evidence that the identified failure mode and proposed routing changes merit operational adoption effort.","External prior-art research before making any distinctiveness or novelty claim."],"next_evidence_step":"Run a time-bounded, non-production study on one frozen rule-language version: document its semantics and enforced bounds; select a representative policy corpus; implement or specify one enforceable bounded fragment and an UNKNOWN-preserving router; and compare them with the current Boolean analyzer on predefined mislabeling, proof-obligation, label-retention, coverage, and runtime categories. Stop or redirect to ordinary complexity engineering if complete formalization shows a finite declared class already covered by a total correct procedure; reject the intervention if independent review finds guarantee mismatch or no reduction in mislabeled outcomes or proof obligations.","research_questions":["Does the deployed platform actually promise a total exact Boolean answer for an open-ended policy class, and how are timeouts currently consumed?","Which language features, queues, event sequences, horizons, external actors, and responses are formally bounded or unbounded?","What correctness, termination, and scope evidence already exists for the current analyzer?","Can fragment membership be mechanically enforced without bypasses or silent language extensions?","Does the proposed exact or abstract analysis preserve the real fulfillment property under modeled carrier, supplier, service, and human behavior?","What share and operational importance of representative policies falls inside the admitted fragment?","Does explicit UNKNOWN routing reduce mislabeled outcomes or proof obligations relative to the baseline without creating unusable alert volume?","Do downstream systems preserve guarantee labels and invoke the specified escalation path?","What existing approaches or prior art bear on the proposal's distinctiveness and adoption case?"],"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment: no external validation of prior art, prevalence, demand, market size, realized impact, or costs was available.","The candidate labels the deployed language, universal guarantee, and potential undecidability as hypotheses.","Computability cannot be distinguished from finite-state complexity until the representation, quantifiers, environment, and bounds are fixed.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent scenarios, not observed quotations, and depend strongly on platform and integration scope.","The proposal's usefulness depends on enforceable fragment coverage, sound modeling, and preservation of UNKNOWN downstream."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that the mechanism composition, restricted policy fragment, tri-state analyzer, abstraction, or governed fallback routing is novel, rare, or superior to existing methods."}