{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__criminology_forensic","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"criminology_forensic","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"categorical_verdicts_from_unbounded_digital_forensic_analysis","causal_lever_id":"enforce_forensic_analyzer_scope_and_unknown_states","proposal":{"problem":"Digital-forensic workflows may be asked to issue categorical, terminating verdicts about semantic behavior of arbitrary seized software—for example, whether it could ever produce a specified trace—without declaring the program class, computation model, or treatment of nontermination. [INFERENCE] This can turn timeout, unsupported input, or incomplete search into an evidentiary NO.","actors_substrate":["digital-forensic examiners","laboratory quality managers","investigators and prosecutors","defense experts","courts","people whose cases depend on tool reports","arbitrary executables, traces, and analyzer reports"],"observable_state":"Reports or downstream interfaces offer only YES/NO; analyzer timeouts or unsupported inputs appear as NO/error; validation uses finite samples while documentation implies coverage of arbitrary programs. [HYPOTHESIS]","consequence":"A categorical forensic conclusion may exceed what the analyzer can establish, creating misleading attribution or exclusion evidence and repeated investment in an impossible universal analyzer. [HYPOTHESIS]","affected_objective":"Scientifically valid, auditable, and non-deceptive digital-forensic conclusions that preserve evidentiary uncertainty.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"unrestricted problem class","domain_realization":"arbitrary executable plus a questioned behavioral trace","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"universal exact terminating answer","domain_realization":"always decide whether the executable can ever produce the trace","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"one-sided or bounded evidence","domain_realization":"observed execution, witness trace, bounded exploration, or sound abstraction","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"collapsed non-answer","domain_realization":"timeout, unsupported, and unconfirmed reported as evidentiary NO","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"decidable restriction","domain_realization":"enforceable finite-state, syntactic, or resource-bounded analyzer scope","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"governed fallback","domain_realization":"labeled YES-with-witness, bounded result, UNKNOWN, out-of-scope, or human review","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Define software, trace property, and allowed environment."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version executable, inputs, environment, and trace encoding."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"State machine semantics, external services, sensors, and analyst inputs."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate exact, sound-one-sided, bounded, and heuristic claims."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Distinguish every program from named or restricted cases."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Classify decidable, recognizable, partial, relative, or unresolved."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Require algorithm and totality proof for any restricted exact mode."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Document source-to-forensic-property translation and biconditional."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Retain a checked reduction for any unrestricted impossibility claim."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"List semantics, encoding, environment, and oracle assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Map enforceable finite-state, fragment, and bounded cases."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"YES requires a checkable execution or other sound witness."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, out-of-scope, and failure distinct from NO."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Route to exact, sound, bounded, or escalated analysis with labels."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version the shipped claim and supporting evidence."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Reassess after language, analyzer, environment, or dependency changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Declare resource bounds for operational analysis."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or quarantine inputs outside guaranteed scope."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record chosen boundary, fallback, rationale, and owner."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record unproved properties and unresolved instances."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Independent reviewer checks theorem, reduction, and formalization fit."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Assess cost only after establishing a total restricted procedure."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use only for sound, explicitly abstracted forensic program properties.","counterfactual_removal":"Removes a useful sound fallback, but bounded and witness modes remain."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Exhaust finite traces or states under a published bound.","counterfactual_removal":"No complete verdict remains for bounded cases."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version scope, guarantees, assumptions, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Boundary drift becomes unauditable."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate feasibility assessment after decidability.","counterfactual_removal":"Computable restricted modes may still be impractical."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Demand totality and correctness for claimed exact fragments.","counterfactual_removal":"Exact-mode claims lack constructive support."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject as redundant where a concrete reduction is clearer.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; reduction supplies the certificate."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject unbounded operation; use bounded semi-decision protocol.","counterfactual_removal":"No change to the terminating pilot."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Route each request to exact, sound, bounded, or escalation mode.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker results can be laundered as categorical verdicts."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Test whether the exact forensic semantic property supports a valid source-to-target reduction.","counterfactual_removal":"The unrestricted impossibility claim lacks decisive evidence."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Enforce a decidable input language or model class.","counterfactual_removal":"No mechanically policed exact region is available."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject as duplicative of the selected specialized reduction.","counterfactual_removal":"No change if reduction obligations remain documented."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject because unenforced promises permit authoritative arbitrary outputs.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss; syntactic restrictions are safer."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use in-scope cases to refute universal analyzer claims.","counterfactual_removal":"Pilot loses a cheap overclaim test."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check the exact theorem and assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"A flawed impossibility or totality proof could govern evidence."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate source-to-target direction and preservation obligations.","counterfactual_removal":"Direction errors become easier to miss."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Return witnessed YES or bounded UNKNOWN, never timeout-as-NO.","counterfactual_removal":"The principal non-deceptive operational fallback disappears."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject for the first test; formal proof search is not required.","counterfactual_removal":"No material pilot change."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject; relative degrees do not answer the operational complement-sensitive question.","counterfactual_removal":"No change to boundary placement."}],"causal_chain":["Unrestricted semantic question plus total Boolean requirement creates an unsupported guarantee.","Valid reduction may rule out an exact universal decider; restricted cases remain separately classifiable.","Enforceable fragments and finite bounds create terminating exact regions.","Witness-based analysis preserves confirmed YES while explicit UNKNOWN prevents false NO.","Routing, checked evidence, and versioned records keep forensic language aligned with each guarantee."],"baseline":"Ordinary casework uses available static/dynamic tools, finite validation sets, time budgets, and examiner judgment; inconclusive tool behavior is handled locally and may lack a uniform output taxonomy. [HYPOTHESIS]","nearest_rival":"Conventional forensic-tool validation and error-rate reporting. It tests empirical performance on selected cases but does not itself establish or refute a class-wide totality claim.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["defendants and suspects","victims","examiners","investigators and counsel","courts"],"decision_authority":"The laboratory quality manager may authorize an internal validation pilot; evidentiary-use changes require the laboratory's competent authority and applicable court process.","authorized_first_step":"On a synthetic, non-case corpus, inventory one analyzer's quantifiers and run bounded examples representing witnessed YES, timeout, unsupported input, and out-of-fragment input; verify distinct labels and independent review.","excluded_actions":["changing live case conclusions from the pilot alone","treating UNKNOWN as inculpatory or exculpatory NO","using destructive tests on original evidence","withholding uncertainty or potentially exculpatory results","claiming undecidability without a checked matching proof"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if labels collapse, scope enforcement fails, a proof assumption mismatches the tool, or synthetic data enters casework; disable pilot routing and restore the prior validated workflow while retaining audit logs."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A representative audit could show that forensic analyzers already make only bounded or instance-specific claims, preserve UNKNOWN/out-of-scope states, and never imply a universal semantic decider.","analogy_break":"Many forensic questions concern finite stored evidence, measurement error, or probabilistic source attribution rather than arbitrary program behavior; computability analysis would misframe those questions.","failure_condition":"The mapping fails if the target claim can be reduced to a finite, effectively enumerable evidence set or is primarily statistical rather than semantic and class-wide.","problem_falsifier":"Review of specifications, interfaces, and reports finds no total universal claim and no conversion of timeout, unsupported, or unresolved outcomes into categorical NO.","intervention_falsifier":"In the bounded pilot, boundary mapping and explicit routing do not reduce unsupported categorical outputs, or they create more consequential misrouting than the baseline without improving auditability.","risks":["An impossibility label may be overgeneralized to decidable forensic subclasses.","A restricted fragment may omit behavior central to a case.","UNKNOWN may be ignored or treated as adverse evidence.","A sound abstraction may be unsoundly implemented.","Formal correctness may legitimate a semantically unfaithful model."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"DOMAIN_TRANSFER","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 candidate is limited to class-wide semantic analysis of arbitrary software in digital forensics, not forensic inference generally."}