{"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__marine_science","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"marine_science","title":"Guarantee-Labeled Hypoxia Reachability Analysis for Executable Marine Models","opportunity_summary":"Assess a model-governance workflow that mechanically restricts exact hypoxia-reachability verdicts to proved, enforceable fragments and routes other requests to UNKNOWN, OUT_OF_SCOPE, or weaker analyses, preventing finite search failure from being labeled as proof of unreachability.","adopter_authorizer":"A marine-model program owner can authorize fixture-based research and routing changes; operational claims additionally require the responsible coastal authority and independent model-governance review.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preventing false assurances about modeled hypoxia could materially improve decisions that consume model verdicts, although the candidate provides no evidence about how often such assurances occur or affect operations."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Marine scientists, model maintainers, and coastal authorities are identifiable beneficiaries, but the sealed candidate only says programs may seek universal analysis and supplies no observed requests, commitments, complaints, or adoption demand."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the stated finite-ensemble baseline, explicit scope admission, preserved UNKNOWN results, evidence-attached verdicts, and weaker fallback routing directly address the conversion of timeout into false absence; realized improvement remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The composition of mechanical fragment admission with guarantee-labeled fallback routing is coherent and potentially distinguishing, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED and overlap with existing verification or assurance workflows is unknown."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A 30-fixture classifier and routing prototype appears bounded and buildable, while sound fragment admission, valid impossibility proofs, model-language expressiveness, and state explosion remain substantial unresolved technical conditions."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate names a program owner for research authorization and coastal authority plus independent review for operational use, with clear excluded actions; multi-party approval makes operational adoption less than straightforward."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal supplies a safe 30-case comparison, defined output labels, explicit baseline, intervention falsifier, error-triggered halt criteria, and rollback to descriptive reporting, though fixture construction and ground-truth methods are unspecified."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Preserving UNKNOWN, prohibiting unrestricted guarantees, separating model claims from ocean claims, and halting on any wrong in-scope verdict provide strong protection against false-unreachable conclusions and inappropriate operational reliance."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A common admission-and-routing contract could transfer across executable model programs, but heterogeneous model encodings, proof obligations, ecologically important feedbacks, and state explosion may require substantial program-specific work."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and execute the authorized comparison on 30 synthetic and archived finite-state, looping, out-of-scope, and witness-bearing fixtures, including ground-truth review, baseline runs, label auditing, and a short independent proof review.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing archived fixtures are legally and technically accessible.","The test uses no field activity or operational decision system.","A small team combines marine-modeling, formal-methods, and evaluation expertise.","No new large-scale compute or specialized equipment is required."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Build a research-grade admission checker and labeled routing service for one marine-model program, integrate it with its analysis workflow, document supported fragments, and establish logging, review, and rollback controls.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment is limited to one program and a constrained set of model representations.","At least one useful fragment can be mechanically recognized.","Existing compute and model-execution infrastructure can be reused.","The estimate excludes operational authorization and broad multi-program support."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Validate and launch the workflow for decision-facing use within one coastal authority context, including independent proof and model-governance review, security and reliability controls, user training, monitoring, integration, and operational acceptance testing.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The responsible coastal authority permits a staged launch after research validation.","Operational outputs remain advisory and retain attached scope and evidence.","Multiple model families or legacy interfaces require integration work.","No bespoke high-performance computing facility must be acquired."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Maintain admission rules, proofs, model adapters, monitoring, audit logs, independent review, incident response, training, and periodic revalidation for one operational program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Model languages and supported fragments evolve but do not require a complete annual redesign.","Existing organizational compliance and compute infrastructure are available.","Independent governance review recurs periodically.","Usage remains within one program rather than a national multi-authority service."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate describes a specific and falsifiable failure mode—treating exhausted ensemble search as proof of no modeled hypoxia—but provides no external evidence that marine programs make this error with meaningful frequency or consequence."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The marine-model program owner is identified for research routing, while the responsible coastal authority and independent model-governance review are identified for operational claims."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The workflow can be compared with conventional finite-horizon ensemble reporting on false-unreachable labels, guarantee overstatement, correct verdicts, UNKNOWN preservation, and retention of materially useful cases."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a 30-case synthetic and archived-fixture comparison, prohibits field or management decisions, and defines both intervention falsifiers and immediate halt conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the fixture-only first step, authority is assigned, operational influence is excluded, affected parties and principal risks are named, and wrong verdicts or unsound admission trigger halt and rollback; this does not authorize live deployment."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate bounds the first test and identifies deployment controls, but does not specify model languages, existing tooling, staffing, integration count, compute demand, or compliance environment, so implementation ranges remain assumption-sensitive."}},"blocking_evidence":["Observed evidence that relevant marine-model programs request universal exact termination or interpret exhausted searches as proof of hypoxia impossibility.","Ground-truth results from the 30-fixture comparison showing whether the workflow reduces false-unreachable labels or guarantee overstatement without rejecting too many useful cases.","A checked construction establishing that the targeted executable model class supports any claimed impossibility result, or evidence that the actual workload is instead finite and enumerable.","Evidence that fragment membership and scope admission can be mechanically enforced without admitting cases for which exact verdicts are unsound.","External comparison with existing marine-model verification, reachability, assurance, and result-labeling workflows.","Evidence that downstream users preserve UNKNOWN and scope qualifications rather than relabeling or ignoring them."],"next_evidence_step":"On 30 synthetic and archived fixtures only, compare the conventional ensemble baseline with the boundary workflow using independently established expected classifications; measure false-unreachable or overstated-guarantee labels, admission errors, and useful-result retention, and falsify the intervention if it produces no safety improvement or rejects materially useful cases without safer actionable output.","research_questions":["Do marine-model programs actually make universal exact reachability claims or interpret timeouts and non-events as proof of unreachability?","Which executable model representations can express the construction required for a scoped impossibility proof?","Are the intended workloads already finite in precision, forcing choices, and horizon, making complexity rather than computability the relevant boundary?","Can membership in useful decidable fragments be checked mechanically and soundly?","How does the complete routing contract differ from existing verification, reachability, assurance, and model-governance systems?","What proportion of ecologically useful cases receives an exact result, a weaker actionable result, or only UNKNOWN?","Do downstream reviewers and decision systems retain attached scope, assumptions, and UNKNOWN semantics?","What compute and review burden arises from state explosion in the admitted fragments?"],"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment cannot establish problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, prior art, or realized impact.","The proposal concerns computability of specified executable model classes, not predictability or decidability of the ocean itself.","Formal guarantees about a model do not resolve observation error, stochasticity, parameter uncertainty, or model inadequacy.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not quotes, and depend strongly on model languages, integrations, proof burden, and governance requirements.","The unrestricted impossibility claim remains conditional on a valid encoding and checked reduction.","Decidability does not imply practical tractability; state explosion may make admitted fragments unusable."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED. This assessment treats the fragment-admission and guarantee-labeled routing composition as only plausibly distinctive and makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, existing marine verification systems, market adoption, or realized performance."}