{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__architecture_urban_planning","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"architecture_urban_planning","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_parametric_plan_compliance_decision","causal_lever_id":"enforceable_compliance_language_boundary_and_labeled_fallback","proposal":{"problem":"A planning or building authority specifies a universal checker that must correctly accept or reject every machine-readable parametric plan against an extensible rule language and always terminate. HYPOTHESIS: if plans or rules can express unbounded computation or behavior, that total-exact requirement may be impossible; current timeouts or passing examples establish neither decidability nor undecidability.","actors_substrate":["municipal planning and building officials","architects and computational-design teams","code and rule authors","permit-platform developers","occupants, neighbors, and accessibility users","parametric plan models and machine-readable compliance rules"],"observable_state":"The checker is advertised as total and Boolean, while accepted language, bounds, computation model, and proof obligations are implicit; timeout, unsupported, and false can be conflated.","consequence":"Projects may receive deceptive compliance verdicts, safe designs may be delayed, unsafe designs may be cleared, or resources may be spent pursuing an impossible unrestricted checker.","affected_objective":"Deliver timely, auditable, non-deceptive plan review without weakening life-safety, accessibility, or due-process protections.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"open-ended universally quantified input class","domain_realization":"Arbitrary parametric plans paired with evolving, potentially user-extensible compliance rules.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"total exact decider","domain_realization":"A checker promised to return compliant or noncompliant correctly and terminate for every accepted submission.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"model-relative impossibility boundary","domain_realization":"The boundary depends on the plan/rule grammar, numeric and geometric semantics, external data, and allowed computation.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"enforceable decidable region","domain_realization":"A parser/type system admits only rule and model fragments having proved terminating decision procedures.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"honest weaker fallback","domain_realization":"Out-of-fragment or resource-exhausted cases return bounded findings, sound alarms, or UNKNOWN for official human review—not a fabricated Boolean verdict.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Define the class of plan-rule compliance questions."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version plan geometry, rule syntax, data, precision, and bounds."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"State arithmetic, geometry, recursion, external-data, and resource capabilities."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate total-exact, sound-incomplete, bounded, and assisted guarantees."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Distinguish every accepted plan from tested plans and individual permits."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Classify fragments as decidable, recognizable, relative, unresolved, or conjectured undecidable."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Provide checker plus correctness and termination argument for each exact fragment."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Specify a computable source-to-compliance encoding preserving answers."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Require a checked reduction before rejecting unrestricted exact automation."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record language, semantics, bounds, oracle, and environmental assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Map enforceable plan and rule fragments with total checkers."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"State which violations or compliance certificates can be confirmed."},{"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 unresolved cases to labeled analysis and authorized review."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version each shipped claim with evidence and assumptions."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reclassify after grammar, semantics, data-source, or checker changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Set explicit finite bounds for operational fallback modes."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Mechanically accept, reject, or quarantine fragment membership."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record chosen boundary, modes, reasons, and authority."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"direct","domain_realization":"List unproved reductions, open obligations, and unmodeled semantics."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Have an independent reviewer check proofs and formal-task fidelity."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Evaluate cost only after decidability is established."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Over-approximate finite plan states; a proved one-sided verdict is labeled, while alarms remain uncertain.","counterfactual_removal":"No sound scalable fallback would cover richer models."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Exhaust finite geometry, occupancy, or trace bounds and confine claims to them.","counterfactual_removal":"Bounded exact verdicts would lack a termination basis."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the boundary, shipped labels, assumptions, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"The causal result remains, but guarantee drift becomes likely."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Measure feasibility only for fragments already shown decidable.","counterfactual_removal":"Computable but unusable fragments could be shipped."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require totality and correctness witnesses for exact fragment checkers.","counterfactual_removal":"The exact region would rest on examples rather than evidence."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject initially; a domain-faithful reduction is easier to audit than self-reference.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; reduction evidence remains available."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject operationally because permit review cannot wait without bound.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; bounded semi-decision supplies honest termination."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Dispatch exact, sound-approximate, bounded, or official-review modes with guarantee labels.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker results could be laundered as full compliance decisions."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Attempt a computable encoding only if the accepted rule language can simulate arbitrary computation.","counterfactual_removal":"The impossibility conjecture would lack a decisive test."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use mechanically enforceable grammar/type restrictions with proved decision procedures.","counterfactual_removal":"There would be no reliable exact operating region."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Formalize totality, computability, and answer preservation of any hardness mapping.","counterfactual_removal":"A rhetorical halting analogy could be mistaken for proof."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject unchecked don't-care inputs; official systems must enforce scope or return out-of-scope.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss; syntactic restriction is safer."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use one in-scope failure to refute a vendor's universal termination or correctness claim.","counterfactual_removal":"Overbroad existing claims become harder to falsify cheaply."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check exactness or impossibility arguments and their formal statement.","counterfactual_removal":"A proof gap could misplace the regulatory boundary."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate reductions on source-to-target direction, assumptions, and preservation.","counterfactual_removal":"A reversed reduction could falsely end automation work."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"At a declared budget, return witnessed YES or UNKNOWN, never infer NO from exhaustion.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeouts could become deceptive negative verdicts."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Defer until a faithful formalization exists; proof search failure is not evidence.","counterfactual_removal":"No hard-gate change; independent checking remains."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject as too permissive for the initial yes/no boundary and one-sided guarantee design.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; many-one reduction is sufficient for the test."}],"causal_chain":["Formalize the accepted plan-rule class, representation, computation model, and universal guarantee.","Test unrestricted decidability with constructive witnesses and a domain-faithful reduction in parallel.","If impossibility is proved, enforce decidable fragments; otherwise label the unrestricted status unresolved.","Route each submission to exact, sound-approximate, bounded, or official-review handling.","Preserve UNKNOWN and scope labels, preventing weak evidence from becoming an official compliance verdict."],"baseline":"Manual official review plus conventional rule scripts, vendor test suites, and timeouts that may silently collapse unsupported or unfinished cases into pass/fail.","nearest_rival":"A larger conventional rules engine with more compute and longer timeouts, but no formal input boundary, totality proof, or UNKNOWN contract.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["permit applicants and design teams","building officials and inspectors","occupants and accessibility users","neighbors and the public"],"decision_authority":"The legally authorized building or planning official retains permit and enforcement authority; technical reviewers approve boundary evidence.","authorized_first_step":"Run a shadow-mode pilot on one jurisdiction's formally encoded egress-rule subset and a fixed corpus: define semantics, prove or challenge termination, inject boundary cases, and compare labeled outputs with official review.","excluded_actions":["automatic permit approval or denial","relaxing life-safety or accessibility requirements","treating UNKNOWN or timeout as compliant or noncompliant","generalizing bounded results beyond their declared bound"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the pilot on any unsound clearance, label leakage, unenforced scope, or material model mismatch; disable automated verdicts, preserve records, and revert all cases to ordinary official review."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The accepted plan and rule representation may already be finite, bounded, and composed only of total predicates; then exhaustive or constructive checking is decidable and the issue is merely complexity.","analogy_break":"Unlike arbitrary programs, real permit submissions can be legally constrained to finite artifacts and a fixed rule grammar; a halting analogy fails unless a computable answer-preserving encoding fits those actual contracts.","failure_condition":"No enforceable fragment covers useful submissions, abstractions cannot maintain soundness, or UNKNOWN volume overwhelms authorized reviewers.","problem_falsifier":"Show that every legally accepted input belongs to an effectively enforceable finite/total class with a uniform terminating correct procedure; the claimed computability-boundary problem then disappears.","intervention_falsifier":"In shadow testing, the boundary router produces unsound clearances, misroutes in-scope cases, leaks UNKNOWN into Boolean decisions, or provides no better safety/throughput tradeoff than ordinary review.","risks":["A formally checked model can misrepresent legal or spatial reality.","Restriction may exclude innovative or accessibility-critical designs.","False alarms may overload reviewers and delay permits.","Officials or vendors may overstate bounded or one-sided guarantees.","Automation may shift accountability away from legally responsible decision-makers."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"TESTABLE_CONJECTURE","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":0.78,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. The target problem is independently recognizable, but the unrestricted language's computational expressiveness and any impossibility reduction remain hypotheses requiring formal validation."}