{"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__nanotechnology","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"nanotechnology","title":"Scope-Explicit Verification for Programmable Self-Assembly","opportunity_summary":"Replace an unsupported exact-total verification claim for open-ended self-assembly designs with a checked boundary map that routes instances to exact, bounded, sound one-sided, or explicit-UNKNOWN analysis. The candidate could reduce false guarantees and non-evidentiary rejections, but its relevance depends on establishing a faithful formal model, a real computability boundary, useful fragment coverage, and demand from verification owners.","adopter_authorizer":"The laboratory or product verification owner could adopt the analysis workflow; applicable research-safety and institutional authorities retain authority over fabrication or release.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the described Boolean treatment of timeouts, bounded results, and out-of-scope cases occurs, it can cause false assurance, unjustified rejection, and wasted verifier-development effort. Impact is potentially substantial because fabricated structures may affect personnel, users, and environments, but prevalence and realized harm are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies verification owners, nanostructure designers, tool developers, proof reviewers, and safety authorities with plausible reasons to want scope-linked guarantees. It provides no evidence that these stakeholders currently experience the problem, demand the intervention, or would fund adoption."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Against both timeout-based Boolean verification and simulation optimization that retains the universal claim, explicit scope restrictions, preserved UNKNOWN states, and checked guarantee records offer a clear and testable correctness advantage. The advantage remains contingent on sound routing and useful resolved coverage."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The combined boundary map and routed guarantee contract is coherent, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED and the packet supplies no evidence distinguishing it from existing self-assembly verification, model-checking, abstraction, or tile-assembly methods."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A non-fabrication benchmark study involving one formal grammar, bounded checking, abstraction, and output routing is technically plausible. Implementability is limited by the need for faithful semantics, a model-matching reduction or constructive verifier, sound abstractions, and an execution-ready benchmark protocol."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The laboratory or product verification owner is identified as able to authorize analysis changes, while fabrication and release remain with existing safety authorities. The first step stays within non-released benchmarks, although downstream enforcement of labels and guarantee records is not demonstrated."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers, comparison conditions, halt criteria, and a bounded non-released first step. It does not yet instantiate the grammar, transition semantics, outcome predicate, corpus rules, routing metrics, or label-comprehension test."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Preserving UNKNOWN and out-of-scope states, prohibiting fabrication based only on the pilot, retaining external release authority, and withdrawing affected guarantees when soundness fails directly limit false assurance while allowing human review."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The routing and guarantee-record pattern could be reused across designs within a checked formalism. Scaling across self-assembly languages, environmental assumptions, or physical models may require new fidelity arguments, proofs, abstractions, benchmarks, and governance review."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Formalize one design grammar and outcome property, curate a non-released benchmark corpus, attempt both a total verifier and a model-matching reduction, compare bounded checking and sound abstraction, and test explicit-UNKNOWN routing.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A small team combines formal-methods and self-assembly expertise.","Existing digital designs can be used without physical fabrication.","The initial study covers one grammar and one outcome property.","Independent proof review and evaluation labor are included."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Build a usable routed-analysis prototype for one organization, validate parsers and semantics, implement guarantee records and label preservation, integrate with a design workflow, and establish review and rollback procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment remains limited to a small number of checked formalisms.","Existing verification or simulation components can be adapted.","No nanostructure fabrication or release program is included.","Security, documentation, training, and independent validation are required."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Launch a governed production analysis service across multiple project teams with validated routing, maintained benchmark suites, audit trails, user training, safety-authority coordination, and monitoring of downstream label interpretation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Multiple design classes or environmental models require separate validation work.","False guaranteed verdicts demand stringent independent review.","The launch covers verification analysis only, not fabrication facilities or product release.","Compliance and partner-coordination requirements are organization-specific and presently unknown."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Maintain semantics, proofs, abstractions, software, benchmarks, guarantee records, audits, user support, and revalidation when design languages or physical assumptions change.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A dedicated interdisciplinary maintenance function is needed.","The number and rate of model changes remain moderate.","Major new formalisms or extensive laboratory validation would exceed this band.","Recurring fabrication and product-release costs are excluded."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate states an observable failure pattern—implicit scope, collapsed timeouts, and generalization from bounded results—with identifiable correctness and safety consequences. Whether it is prevalent in actual projects still requires external evidence."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The laboratory or product verification owner can authorize analysis changes, while research-safety and institutional authorities retain fabrication and release authority."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The routed system can be compared with timeout-based Boolean verification on correctly resolved coverage, misrouting, false guaranteed verdicts, and preservation of UNKNOWN and scope labels."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate confines the first step to one formalized grammar and outcome property on a non-released benchmark corpus, with constructive and reduction attempts and no physical fabrication."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The pilot requires no fabrication, prohibits treating UNKNOWN as a verdict, preserves external release authority, and includes halt and rollback conditions for model, abstraction, and labeling failures."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"A pilot boundary is described, but the grammar, semantics, corpus size, proof-review effort, software integration, and organizational compliance requirements are not instantiated, making even broad implementation ranges low-confidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["Evidence that the declared formal grammar and outcome predicate faithfully represent the relevant physical safety claim.","A checked constructive result or valid model-matching impossibility reduction for the same declared class and computation model.","Evidence that useful operational designs are not already necessarily finite and effectively enumerable.","Measured comparison showing improved correctly resolved coverage without false guaranteed verdicts or misrouting.","Demonstration that downstream tools and users preserve and correctly interpret UNKNOWN, bounds, and scope labels.","External evidence that verification owners encounter this problem and would adopt a restricted, non-Boolean workflow.","Prior-art research distinguishing the proposed boundary map and guarantee contract from existing verification approaches."],"next_evidence_step":"On a non-released benchmark corpus, instantiate one self-assembly grammar, transition semantics, outcome predicate, and computation model; independently attempt a total verifier and a source-to-target reduction; then compare the baseline timeout-to-Boolean workflow with exact bounded checking, a declared sound abstraction, and explicit-UNKNOWN routing. Stop if the formal property is unfaithful, and reject the intervention if it yields any false guaranteed verdict, misroutes an in-scope instance, or fails to improve correctly resolved coverage.","research_questions":["Does the selected self-assembly formalism support a faithful encoding needed for an impossibility reduction?","Are operational instances necessarily finite and effectively enumerable under enforceable physical constraints?","Which decidable fragments or finite bounds cover the designs stakeholders actually need to verify?","Can abstractions establish a checked soundness direction without unusable false alarms?","Does routed analysis improve correctly resolved coverage relative to timeout-based Boolean output?","Can downstream systems and users reliably preserve and interpret UNKNOWN, bounds, and scope labels?","How does the proposed workflow differ from existing self-assembly verification and formal model-checking methods?","Which verification owners recognize the problem and possess both incentive and authority to adopt the workflow?"],"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no evidence of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, or domain novelty.","Undecidability is a hypothesis and cannot be inferred from timeouts, state-space growth, or analogy to arbitrary programs.","A mathematically correct result may not support a physical safety claim if the formal model is unfaithful.","The practical value depends on fragment coverage, tractability, abstraction soundness, and downstream label preservation.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based only on the stated scope, not externally validated estimates.","Fabrication and release remain outside the assessed intervention and require separate authority and evidence."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched. This assessment cannot determine whether the computability boundary, fragment-routing method, sound abstractions, or scope-linked guarantee contract already exist or are common in programmable self-assembly verification; no novelty, prevalence, market, or realized-impact claim is made."}