{"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__religious_studies_theology","archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"religious_studies_theology","title":"Decidable-Fragment Routing with Explicit UNKNOWN for Formal-Theology Research","opportunity_summary":"Conditionally replace an unqualified binary entailment interface with enforced scope checks, a proved total decider for a declared fragment, checked witnesses where applicable, and distinct UNKNOWN, malformed, and out-of-scope labels. The opportunity depends on first establishing that an actual research platform exhibits the hypothesized timeout-to-NO or guarantee-overclaim defect.","adopter_authorizer":"A research platform's methods lead and formal-methods reviewer could authorize computational labels; participating scholars or community representatives must govern representational adequacy, and neither group can authorize the tool as an arbiter of religious truth.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Preventing computational failure from being presented as doctrinal negation or inconsistency could materially improve research integrity and reduce representational harm, but the packet provides no observed platform defect, affected volume, or realized consequence."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Researchers, students, represented communities, and authors have plausible interests in qualified results, but the packet contains no adopter request, complaint, commitment, or evidence that any stakeholder currently prioritizes this problem."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to spending more resources on the same universal binary interface, enforced fragment membership and an explicit UNKNOWN state directly prevent search failure from being encoded as NO. Advantage remains conditional on enforceable scope and a useful fragment."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The guarantee-based routing mechanism is clearly differentiated from the stated heuristic baseline, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED, so novelty or uncommonness cannot be credited closed-book."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A small synthetic fragment, total decider, exhaustive bounded tests, and injected timeout cases form a plausible implementation. Implementability for heterogeneous real formalisms is uncertain because syntax, semantics, expressiveness, scope enforcement, and proof obligations are unspecified."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet identifies computational-label authorizers and separately assigns representational governance, with explicit exclusions and rollback. Feasibility is moderated by the need for joint review and the absence of an identified organization willing to adopt the arrangement."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal has observable failure states, separate falsifiers, and a bounded synthetic test, but the target defect, actual accepted language, timeout behavior, computational classification, and comparative benefit are all unevidenced hypotheses."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Explicit UNKNOWN, malformed, and out-of-scope states; prohibited authority claims; synthetic first testing; binary-export disablement; and publication halt conditions provide strong safeguards against converting computational limits into theological judgments."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The routing pattern can in principle be reused, but every materially different calculus may require new semantic review, fragment definition, termination or correctness work, scope enforcement, and community governance; narrow fragments may also exclude central questions."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded, isolated audit of one consenting platform or documented workflow using synthetic inputs, covering accepted syntax, stated guarantees, timeouts, malformed inputs, unsupported cases, and output labels.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One platform grants timely access to documentation and a non-live test environment.","The audit uses synthetic, non-sensitive cases and does not formalize community doctrines.","The scope excludes proving a new general decider or integrating production software.","Costs include researcher labor, platform coordination, test-corpus preparation, and review."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Specify one useful fragment, formalize its semantics, implement and review a total decider and scope checker, build labeled tests, and design versioned UNKNOWN and error outputs.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Only one bounded formal language and one platform integration are included.","Existing proof-assistant or rule-engine infrastructure can be reused.","Independent formal-methods and theological-semantic review are required.","No claim of unrestricted-language decidability is attempted."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production integration for one research platform, including interface changes, export controls, monitoring, documentation, training, accessibility, governance coordination, security and compliance review, and comparative evaluation before publication use.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is limited to one institution or consortium and a small number of declared formalisms.","Participating scholars or community representatives are compensated for governance work.","Legacy binary consumers require migration and testing.","No labels are applied to people or communities."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain fragment definitions, decider and scope-checker tests, versioned guarantees, monitoring, incident review, user training, semantic governance, and periodic independent review for one deployed platform.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The number of supported fragments changes slowly.","Major new languages or proof calculi are treated as separate startup projects.","Operational volume is research-platform scale rather than mass public use.","Recurring costs include technical, governance, and evaluation labor."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The failure mode is coherent and observable, but the packet reports no actual platform, documented incident, or audit showing that timeout, failed search, malformed input, or unsupported syntax is converted into a substantive NO verdict."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet identifies a research-methods lead and formal-methods reviewer as computational-label authorizers and assigns representational adequacy to participating scholars or community representatives."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The routed interface can be compared with the ordinary binary baseline on false substantive verdicts, guarantee-label errors, abstentions, scope-check bypasses, and legitimate in-fragment cases."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A synthetic, non-sensitive audit of one consenting platform can test accepted-language boundaries and handling of injected timeout, malformed, and out-of-fragment cases without live theological classification."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is synthetic and isolated; authority limits, excluded uses, publication halts, and rollback to research-only labeled traces are explicit. The packet does not authorize religious-truth judgments or labels about people or communities."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet specifies major implementation components, but actual language complexity, platform architecture, access conditions, proof tooling, semantic-review workload, and governance participation are unknown, making even broad deployment ranges low-confidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["An audit showing whether an actual platform accepts the alleged input class and converts timeout, unfinished search, malformed input, or unsupported syntax into an unqualified substantive verdict.","A precise specification of the target syntax, semantics, proof calculus, and computation model, followed by a checked constructive classification or valid impossibility argument under those assumptions.","Comparative evidence that routing reduces false binary verdicts and guarantee mislabeling without failing legitimate in-fragment cases or allowing scope-check bypasses.","Evidence that the selected fragment covers research-relevant questions without unacceptable semantic mismatch or exclusion of concepts central to represented traditions.","External prior-art research, because the packet explicitly marks prior-art status as UNSEARCHED."],"next_evidence_step":"In an isolated environment, audit one consenting actual platform with a prespecified synthetic corpus containing ordinary in-scope cases, malformed inputs, unsupported syntax, forced timeouts, and out-of-fragment cases. Compare observed outputs and termination behavior with the platform's documented accepted class and guarantees. Falsify the problem claim if the accepted class is finite or enforceably decidable with a checked total procedure and the platform never turns failure states into substantive verdicts; do not use natural-language doctrines or publish theological conclusions.","research_questions":["Does any actual formal-religion research platform expose the hypothesized universal binary interface or convert failed proof search into non-entailment?","What exact syntax, semantics, quantifiers, proof calculus, and computation model define the intended accepted class?","Can fragment membership be enforced before substantive classification, including through imports, extensions, or assisted translations?","Can the proposed total decider's correctness and termination be independently checked, and does it handle every legitimate in-fragment case?","How much research-relevant material falls inside the fragment, and what concepts or traditions are disproportionately placed outside it?","Do downstream exports, visualizations, or user practices preserve UNKNOWN rather than coercing it back into NO?","What prior systems already distinguish proved results, failed search, timeout, malformed input, and unsupported scope in this domain?","Can participating scholars and community representatives practically exercise representational governance without implying endorsement or religious authority?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment: no claims are made about prior art, prevalence, market size, realized impact, or exact cost.","The existence of the target platform defect is a hypothesis, not an observed finding.","The computational status of any unrestricted target language cannot be inferred from prover failure or surface expressiveness.","Formal derivability concerns only the encoded calculus and cannot establish theological truth, orthodoxy, lived meaning, or communal legitimacy.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges with low confidence, not vendor quotes or point estimates.","Synthetic bounded results would support only the tested fragment, encoding, and bound.","A correct proof procedure may still operate on a semantically unfaithful formalization."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED. This assessment credits only the proposal's internal differentiation from its stated heuristic baseline and makes no claim that explicit UNKNOWN routing, decidable-fragment enforcement, checked witnesses, or comparable safeguards are novel, rare, or absent from existing research systems."}