{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__data_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"data_science","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_exact_data_leakage_detection_for_arbitrary_pipelines","causal_lever_id":"formal_solvability_boundary_with_guarantee_labeled_fallbacks","proposal":{"problem":"A data-science platform claims to decide, with a correct Boolean answer and guaranteed termination, whether any arbitrary executable training, feature, and evaluation pipeline contains data leakage. Because leakage is a semantic property of potentially unbounded program behavior, timeouts and incomplete searches are liable to be reported as 'no leakage,' while restricted successes are generalized to all pipelines.","actors_substrate":["data-science platform team","model developers","risk and validation reviewers","downstream decision owners","people affected by deployed predictions","arbitrary pipeline programs, datasets, timestamps, and execution traces"],"observable_state":"The analyzer accepts unrestricted executable pipelines, promises LEAK/NO_LEAK for every input, and converts timeout or unresolved analysis into NO_LEAK without a model-matched totality proof.","consequence":"Undetected leakage inflates validation results and can authorize unreliable models; false alarms waste review effort; repeated attempts at an impossible universal decider consume engineering capacity.","affected_objective":"Truthful, terminating, and operationally useful leakage assurance with outputs whose scope and strength are explicit.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"unrestricted universally quantified analyzer","domain_realization":"exact terminating leakage classification for every arbitrary executable data pipeline","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"semantic property over program behavior","domain_realization":"whether information unavailable at prediction time can influence fitting, features, or evaluation along any execution","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"computability boundary","domain_realization":"unrestricted program-semantic analysis versus enforceable pipeline DSLs, finite traces, and sound abstractions","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"honest weaker fallback","domain_realization":"exact restricted checks, sound conservative analysis, bounded witness search, and explicit UNKNOWN or OUT_OF_SCOPE","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"versioned guarantee","domain_realization":"a boundary record linking accepted language, analyzer version, assumptions, verdict semantics, and recheck triggers","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Define leakage decisions over pipeline classes, not anecdotes."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version the pipeline IR, data lineage, clocks, split rules, and external calls."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"State whether analysis sees source, traces, finite state, or declared external-service summaries."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate total exact, sound incomplete, bounded, and heuristic guarantees."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Distinguish every arbitrary pipeline from each analyzed instance or restricted fragment."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Classify modes as decidable, recognizable, partial, relative, undecidable, or unresolved."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Provide a terminating leakage checker and proof for the restricted DSL."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Specify a computable embedding whose leakage verdict preserves a source halting answer."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Retain the reviewed reduction for unrestricted executable pipelines."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record language expressiveness, observability, sound summaries, and leakage semantics."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Map enforceable acyclic DSLs and finite bounded traces to available deciders."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"A witnessed forbidden dependency may confirm leakage without implying completeness for no-leakage."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, TIMEOUT, OUT_OF_SCOPE, NO_LEAK, and FAILURE distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Route by class to exact, conservative, bounded, or human-reviewed modes."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Publish machine-readable verdict strength and applicable analyzer version."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Reassess after IR, DSL, external-call, leakage-definition, or abstraction changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Exact modes terminate by proof; bounded modes stop at declared time, depth, or trace limits."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or quarantine pipelines outside the supported fragment."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record why universal Boolean classification was replaced and who approved it."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Expose unresolved paths, opaque calls, and abstraction-induced alarms."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Have an independent reviewer check the reduction and restricted checker proof."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"After decidability, assess state explosion and production resource limits."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Over-approximate pipeline dependencies so a NO_LEAK verdict is sound while alarms may be false positives.","counterfactual_removal":"General out-of-fragment pipelines lose a sound conservative fallback."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Enumerate all traces within explicit finite data, branch, and depth bounds.","counterfactual_removal":"Bounded exact assurance is unavailable, but the boundary still stands."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the chosen boundary, guarantees, evidence, and triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift without traceability."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate decidable modes for state explosion after computability classification.","counterfactual_removal":"Correct modes may be operationally unusable."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Construct and prove a total checker for an enforceable pipeline DSL.","counterfactual_removal":"The safe exact region lacks a positive solvability witness."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A direct diagonal proof duplicates the selected reduction and is harder to tie to the pipeline encoding.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unbounded recognition conflicts with the operational termination requirement; bounded explicit-unknown search is used.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Dispatch exact DSL checks, conservative analysis, bounded search, or escalation and label each guarantee.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker modes can be mistaken for universal exact answers."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Attempt a model-matched reduction from halting to leakage in unrestricted executable pipelines.","counterfactual_removal":"There is no decisive basis for rejecting the universal decider claim."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use a mechanically enforceable acyclic, finitely specified pipeline DSL.","counterfactual_removal":"No enforceable exact decidable subclass remains."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Its obligations are incorporated into the specific halting reduction rather than maintained as a separate mechanism.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change if those obligations remain explicit."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"An unenforced promise risks authoritative outputs on violations; syntactic restriction is safer.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use one in-scope pipeline that defeats the current analyzer to refute its universal claim.","counterfactual_removal":"The first test loses a cheap overclaim check."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check the impossibility and restricted-totality arguments.","counterfactual_removal":"A proof gap may define the shipped boundary."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Verify source-to-target direction, total encoding, preservation, and assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"A reversed or partial reduction may be trusted."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Bound witness search and return UNKNOWN rather than NO_LEAK when unconfirmed.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeouts again become deceptive negatives."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"unused","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Optional proof discovery adds no necessary role to the bounded first test.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No oracle-relative classification is required for the product decision.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."}],"causal_chain":["Formalize unrestricted leakage detection and its Boolean-total guarantee.","Attempt constructive proof and a correctly directed halting reduction under the same representation and computation model.","If impossibility is established, reject only the unrestricted total-exact claim.","Enforce a decidable DSL and prove its exact checker total and correct.","Route other inputs to sound abstraction or bounded witness search with UNKNOWN/OUT_OF_SCOPE states.","Publish versioned guarantees, residue, and triggers; then evaluate complexity."],"baseline":"Run the analyzer on arbitrary pipelines; report detected leakage as LEAK and convert timeout, unsupported constructs, or no found witness into NO_LEAK.","nearest_rival":"Keep unrestricted coverage but improve heuristics and timeout budgets while adding disclaimers; this may improve detection yet still lacks a defensible negative verdict.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["model developers","validation teams","downstream decision owners","people subject to model-assisted decisions"],"decision_authority":"The platform risk owner may approve only the bounded pilot; production guarantee changes require joint approval from platform engineering and model-risk governance.","authorized_first_step":"On a frozen corpus, formalize one pipeline IR, review one reduction, implement one restricted checker plus explicit UNKNOWN routing, and compare verdicts without changing production decisions.","excluded_actions":["silently treating UNKNOWN or TIMEOUT as NO_LEAK","generalizing bounded results beyond their bound","auto-approving models from the pilot","claiming undecidability before the reduction and assumptions pass review"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if the formal leakage property omits a material real-world leakage channel, the reduction fails preservation review, the restricted checker produces a false NO_LEAK, or callers collapse UNKNOWN. Revert to mandatory existing review and disable negative assurance labels."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The deployed pipeline language may already be finite, acyclic, fully observable, and equipped with a known total lineage checker; then this is a tractability or implementation problem, not a computability boundary.","analogy_break":"Program-semantic undecidability does not automatically transfer to statistical leakage: leakage depends on a chosen temporal and informational policy, and finite tabular workflows can be exhaustively decidable.","failure_condition":"The approach fails operationally if the safe fragment excludes routine pipelines or conservative analysis returns so many alarms and UNKNOWN results that users bypass it.","problem_falsifier":"Inventory shows every accepted pipeline belongs to an effectively finite, enforceable class with an existing correct terminating leakage decision procedure and no unrestricted guarantee is made.","intervention_falsifier":"Under the frozen pilot specification, the restricted checker yields any false NO_LEAK, scope membership is not mechanically enforceable, or routed labels are interpreted as stronger than their recorded guarantee.","risks":["A flawed reduction falsely retires feasible automation.","The formal leakage definition may be semantically incomplete.","False alarms or excessive UNKNOWN may encourage bypass.","A restricted guarantee may be marketed as universal.","Opaque external services may add undeclared information or computation."]},"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 inference from the supplied packet. The target problem is independently recognizable as overclaimed universal leakage analysis; undecidability and practical usefulness remain hypotheses pending a model-matched reduction, constructive restricted proof, and bounded pilot."}