{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__accounting_auditing","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"accounting_auditing","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"unbounded_transaction_system_audit_decidability","causal_lever_id":"scope_relative_audit_automation_guarantees","proposal":{"problem":"Audit teams may require a terminating, exact tool to decide, for every possible execution of arbitrary transaction-processing programs and policies, whether financial records can ever produce a specified material misstatement or control violation. Timeouts, tests, and successful checks on selected systems are then misreported as universal assurance.","actors_substrate":["audit methodology owner","internal and external auditors","financial-reporting management","developers of audit analyzers","audit committee","users relying on audit conclusions"],"observable_state":"A Boolean audit conclusion is demanded for unrestricted program-and-policy inputs; the analyzer has no enforceable scope contract or UNKNOWN state, and its evidence consists mainly of finite tests or timeouts.","consequence":"An impossible or mismatched universal guarantee can consume implementation effort or turn nontermination and unexamined behavior into false assurance.","affected_objective":"Truthful, terminating, traceable assurance about automated financial-reporting controls without overstating coverage.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"unrestricted decision class","domain_realization":"All encoded transaction systems and executions under an asserted misstatement or control property.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"total exact decider demand","domain_realization":"Always return violation/no-violation correctly, with guaranteed termination.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"model-relative boundary proof","domain_realization":"Classify the audit question under an explicit system language, evidence model, property, and quantifiers.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"restricted decidable region","domain_realization":"Finite periods, bounded traces, or mechanically enforced rule-language fragments.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"honest fallback","domain_realization":"Exact bounded checks, sound one-sided findings, and UNKNOWN or human escalation outside the guarantee.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"boundary drift control","domain_realization":"Reclassify when transaction-language expressiveness, interfaces, evidence, or materiality rules change.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Formal audit property and eligible system class."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Encoding of programs, ledgers, policies, evidence, and bounds."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Declared machine plus any database, expert, certificate, or sensor access."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Exact, sound-incomplete, bounded, or relative assurance."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate every system/execution claims from period or entity claims."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Decidable, recognizable, partial, relative, undecidable, or unresolved."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Algorithm and proof for each admitted fragment."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Total computable source-to-audit mapping with answer preservation."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Checked proof limited to the encoded unrestricted audit property."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Semantics, evidence completeness, materiality, and model assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Enforceable finite, bounded, and restricted-language audit classes."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Verified violation witness permits YES; absence does not permit NO."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, out-of-scope, false, and failure distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Route to bounded checks, qualified findings, or escalation."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Versioned statement of precisely shipped assurance."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Language, property, evidence, oracle, or bound changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Finite population or explicit time, depth, and state bounds."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Mechanically checked admission and visible rejection rules."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Approved boundary, rationale, evidence, and owner."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Unproved obligations and unmodeled facts."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reviewer checks theorem, encoding, reduction, and guarantee."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Decidable cases proceed to cost and feasibility analysis."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No packet evidence that a useful sound abstraction exists for accounting semantics.","counterfactual_removal":"Core boundary classification remains intact."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Exhaust finite periods, traces, or states only within published bounds.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses a terminating exact bounded mode."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the scope, guarantee, assumptions, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift without provenance."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Assess cost only after decidability classification.","counterfactual_removal":"Decidable fragments may still be operationally infeasible."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require totality and correctness for claimed exact fragments.","counterfactual_removal":"Positive decidability claims lack witnesses."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A reduction is the clearer candidate proof route.","counterfactual_removal":"No change if reduction evidence exists."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unbounded running is unsuitable for the first operational test.","counterfactual_removal":"Bounded explicit-UNKNOWN protocol remains."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Route admitted queries to exact, bounded, one-sided, or escalated modes with labels.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker results can be laundered as universal conclusions."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Attempt a checked reduction only for audit properties genuinely dependent on arbitrary program behavior.","counterfactual_removal":"The proposed impossibility boundary lacks decisive evidence."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Admit a mechanically enforceable transaction-rule fragment with a decider.","counterfactual_removal":"No guaranteed-answer region is recovered."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use its totality, computability, and biconditional obligations for the reduction.","counterfactual_removal":"Reduction defects become easier to overlook."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unchecked promises could yield authoritative answers on violated preconditions.","counterfactual_removal":"Enforceable fragment and explicit rejection are safer."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use in-scope failing cases to refute overbroad analyzer claims.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses a cheap universal-claim challenge."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently verify the formal theorem and exposed assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"A flawed boundary proof may govern audit use."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate source-to-target direction and stated assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"A reversed reduction may be accepted."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Return verified violation or UNKNOWN at a declared budget, never fabricated clearance.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeout may again be interpreted as no violation."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Optional automation is unnecessary for the bounded first test.","counterfactual_removal":"Independent proof review still supplies the gate."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative degrees add no necessary operational distinction here.","counterfactual_removal":"The proposed class boundary is unchanged."}],"causal_chain":["Specify the audit decision class, encoding, model, property, and quantifiers.","Seek a constructive decider and a valid impossibility reduction in parallel.","Restrict admission to proved decidable fragments and finite bounds.","Route other inputs to sound findings, UNKNOWN, or accountable escalation.","Attach guarantee labels and versioned evidence to every result.","Prevent timeout or absence of a witness from becoming audit clearance."],"baseline":"Build and benchmark a Boolean universal analyzer; treat timeouts as failures or negative findings and document exceptions informally.","nearest_rival":"Conventional risk-based audit automation using sampling, rules, and human review without a formal class-wide solvability classification.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["financial-reporting management","auditors","audit committee","investors and creditors","employees subject to control findings"],"decision_authority":"The audit methodology owner may approve the pilot; engagement leadership retains authority over audit conclusions, and management retains responsibility for statements.","authorized_first_step":"Offline pilot on synthetic and previously adjudicated cases: formalize one audit property, enforce one bounded fragment, test adversarial in-scope/out-of-scope inputs, and compare labels with the baseline without issuing audit opinions.","excluded_actions":["issuing or changing an audit opinion","treating UNKNOWN as no misstatement","deploying on live posting paths","silently excluding inputs","claiming undecidability without an independently checked proof"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if an in-scope wrong clearance occurs, scope admission is bypassed, guarantee labels are lost, or proof review finds a gap; disable routing and revert to existing human-reviewed procedures."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Most real engagement questions may concern a finite reporting period and finite retained evidence, making them decidable by enumeration in principle; then the central problem is complexity, evidence quality, or judgment rather than computability.","analogy_break":"Financial-statement truth depends on external facts, estimates, legal interpretation, and materiality judgments. A proof about encoded program behavior does not establish assurance about reality unless semantic fidelity is independently justified.","failure_condition":"The approach fails if the restricted fragment excludes material ordinary cases, admission cannot be enforced, or UNKNOWN outputs are operationally coerced into clearance.","problem_falsifier":"The diagnosed problem is absent if stakeholders seek only bounded-instance analysis, make no universal exact-termination claim, and already distinguish timeout, UNKNOWN, and false.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if boundary mapping and routing do not reduce overstated clearances versus the baseline, or produce materially more missed actionable cases under the agreed bounded test.","risks":["A formally checked model may omit economically material behavior.","Restricting expressiveness may shift work into uncontrolled channels.","Frequent UNKNOWN results may create pressure to relabel them.","An impossibility theorem may be overgeneralized beyond its encoding.","Bounded exhaustive checks may be mistaken for universal proof."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"MECHANISM_COMPOSITION","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","evidence_maturity":"HYPOTHESIS"},"revision_change_log":{"revision_kind":"ORIGINAL","prior_problem_id":null,"prior_causal_lever_id":null,"problem_changed":false,"causal_lever_changed":false,"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"repairs_addressed":[]},"confidence":0.84,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. The domain fit is conditional on an actual unrestricted semantic automation claim; finite-period audit work alone falls under the stated problem falsifier."}