{"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__philosophy","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"philosophy","title":"Guarantee-Labeled Routing for Philosophical Entailment Assessment","opportunity_summary":"Conditionally replace forced binary verdicts with total evaluation only inside mechanically recognizable decidable fragments, bounded certificate search elsewhere, and an explicit UNKNOWN outcome. The proposal could prevent unsupported negative verdicts, but the admitted language, matching computability boundary, existence of the described platform behavior, and usable fragment coverage remain unestablished.","adopter_authorizer":"A joint philosophy-content owner and formal-logic lead would authorize scope, with an independent reviewer approving proof claims; no specific adopting organization is identified.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Avoiding false entailment verdicts and impossible evaluator work could materially improve auditability and protect authors, readers, operators, and downstream systems. Impact is uncertain because the existence, frequency, and consequences of forced-binary behavior are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies affected roles and an affected objective, but supplies no evidence that a platform, content owner, logic lead, or user population presently demands this intervention or experiences the stated problem."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Explicit UNKNOWN routing, fragment-specific guarantees, certificate checking, and reclassification directly improve on the stated baseline's inconsistent handling of timeout, failed search, and unsupported syntax. The advantage remains conditional on sound classification and useful coverage."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The philosophy-specific guarantee contract and routing claim are coherent, but prior art is unsearched and the constituent mechanisms are presented as a domain transfer. Closed-book evidence cannot establish distinctiveness."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Fragment recognition, bounded search, certificate checking, and labeled routing are implementable in principle, but the proposal omits the actual language, semantics, computation model, matching decider or reduction, and demonstrated coverage."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Approval roles, an independent proof reviewer, prohibited uses, halt triggers, and rollback are explicitly assigned. Feasibility is reduced because no concrete institution or evidence that these roles control the platform is supplied."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate is explicitly a hypothesis: no checked computability classification, platform evidence, intervention results, or preregistered thresholds are supplied. A bounded 120-argument shadow-test concept provides a starting point but not decision-ready evidence."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"An explicit UNKNOWN state and halt rules directly protect against converting timeout, failed search, or out-of-contract inputs into authoritative negative verdicts. They do not protect against proving a mistranslated proposition or users equating derivability with philosophical truth."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Mechanically enforced fragments, certificates, and routing could be reused across machine-readable arguments, but expert formalization, semantic-fidelity review, fragment exclusions, and assumption-triggered reclassification may constrain coverage and throughput."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Specify the admitted language and semantics, obtain an independently checked boundary classification, implement a shadow-only router, adjudicate and analyze the proposed 120 archived arguments, and document semantic-fidelity and soundness checks.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Archived arguments and existing baseline outputs are accessible without new licensing.","The study involves one platform and a small team of formal logicians, philosophy reviewers, and engineers.","No live verdicts are published or used for grading, review, or downstream decisions.","Specialized proof review and adversarial-case preparation are included."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Build production fragment validators, certificate checking, bounded-search routing, guarantee labels, audit logs, reclassification controls, and review workflows for one platform.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["An existing argument platform and machine-readable representation can be extended.","The supported fragments do not require creation of a new general-purpose prover.","Security, accessibility, and integration testing are included.","This band excludes broad multi-institution rollout."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Complete production integration, migrate applicable workflows, train operators and reviewers, validate user-facing distinctions among entailment, unknown status, and truth, and conduct launch-period independent audit and monitoring.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is limited to one organization or platform.","Manual review remains available for UNKNOWN and out-of-contract cases.","No major redesign is required after the shadow test.","Legal, governance, and partner-coordination work is moderate."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Maintain prover and fragment definitions, review certificates and semantic fidelity, monitor misuse and unknown rates, reclassify guarantees after assumption changes, handle incidents, and support users.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A small continuing engineering and expert-review team is required.","Argument volume is moderate and most supported cases are machine-checkable.","Independent audits occur periodically rather than continuously.","Material language expansion would be treated as new development rather than routine maintenance."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"12_TO_36_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The universal-decision mismatch is coherent and falsifiable, but the packet supplies no independent evidence that the described platform requirement, unrestricted language, or forced-binary handling exists."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate assigns scope approval to a philosophy-content owner and formal-logic lead and proof approval to an independent reviewer, although it does not name a specific institution."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The router claims to reduce forced-binary errors relative to manual formalization plus time-limited proof search while retaining usable coverage; any unsound definitive verdict or failure to improve that baseline is specified as counterevidence."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A read-only shadow test on 120 archived arguments across supported, unrestricted, malformed, and adversarial strata is bounded and safe, and the candidate names the existing baseline and unsound-or-no-improvement falsifier. Outcome definitions and thresholds still require preregistration."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For evidence collection, named approvers, an independent reviewer, prohibited uses, explicit halt triggers, label withdrawal, and restoration of manual review provide an affirmative safety and authority basis. This does not authorize live deployment."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"NO","reason":"The sealed candidate provides neither a resource scope nor a cost range for implementation, integration, specialist review, governance, or recurring operation; evaluator bands therefore depend on assumptions rather than candidate evidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["A formal specification of the platform's admitted language, semantics, quantifiers, computation model, and enforceable syntax boundary.","An independently checked matching total decider or impossibility reduction, with all assumptions recorded.","Evidence that the described platform requirement and forced-binary handling actually occur and are not primarily symptoms of ambiguous formalization.","Preregistered shadow-test sampling, adjudicated outcome definitions, baseline procedure, soundness checks, coverage and UNKNOWN-rate criteria, and decision thresholds.","Evidence that formal encodings preserve the intended philosophical arguments and that users understand entailment labels as distinct from truth or soundness.","A scoped implementation and operating resource model covering engineering, expert review, governance, integration, and maintenance."],"next_evidence_step":"Before any live use, preregister and run the authorized read-only study: formally specify and independently classify the admitted language, then apply the shadow router to the 120 stratified archived arguments and compare it with the stated manual-plus-time-limited-search baseline. Stop advancement if the full language is verified decidable, any definitive shadow verdict is unsound, or routing fails to reduce forced-binary errors while meeting the preregistered usable-coverage criterion.","research_questions":["What exact language, semantics, computation model, and quantification define the platform's entailment contract?","Does a checked total decider exist for that full contract, or can a matching impossibility reduction be verified?","Does any actual platform force timeouts, failed searches, unsupported inputs, or out-of-fragment cases into binary verdicts?","Which mechanically recognizable fragments cover the archived and anticipated argument workload, and what UNKNOWN rate results?","Compared with the stated baseline, does routing reduce unsupported binary verdicts without introducing any unsound definitive verdict?","How reliably do independent reviewers judge that each formal encoding preserves the submitted philosophical argument?","Do users distinguish formal entailment, non-derivability, UNKNOWN, soundness, and philosophical truth when shown the proposed labels?","What staffing, integration, governance, and recurring review resources would production operation require?","What existing approaches or prior art already provide fragment enforcement, guarantee labeling, certificate checking, or explicit unknown routing in comparable settings?","Which assumption changes should automatically invalidate a guarantee label and trigger reclassification? "],"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book review cannot establish problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, prior art, world novelty, or realized impact.","The core technical classification is unresolved because the admitted formal language and matching proof are absent.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent scenarios rather than quotations or point estimates and have low confidence.","The proposed 120-case design lacks supplied outcome thresholds, sampling details, and demonstrated representativeness.","Formal certificate validity does not establish semantic fidelity to the original argument or philosophical truth.","Scalability depends on enforceable-fragment coverage, workload volume, and the amount of expert review required."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that guarantee-labeled routing, fragment restriction, certificate checking, explicit UNKNOWN outcomes, or their application to philosophical argument platforms is novel, rare, prevalent, or commercially differentiated."}