{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__ethnography_qualitative_methods","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"ethnography_qualitative_methods","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_qualitative_workflow_validator_overclaim","causal_lever_id":"enforceable_qualitative_workflow_solvability_boundary","proposal":{"problem":"A qualitative-analysis platform is specified to decide, correctly and with guaranteed termination, whether every arbitrary user-authored coding workflow will terminate and produce a unique, rule-consistent classification for every admissible transcript. The workflow language, contextual inputs, quantifiers, and treatment of timeout are unspecified, so test-suite success or failure may be mistaken for a universal guarantee.","actors_substrate":["qualitative researchers and coders","research-method leads and ethics or governance reviewers","qualitative-analysis platform designers","participants and communities represented in source materials","downstream users of qualitative findings"],"observable_state":"HYPOTHESIS: Documentation presents an unrestricted always-correct validator, while evaluations cover finitely many workflows; timeouts, unsupported constructs, and inconclusive analyses are forced into valid or invalid outputs, or the workflow language is silently narrowed.","consequence":"Unsound validation can legitimize unstable coding pipelines, while an unjustified impossibility claim can block useful restricted automation; either can distort findings, waste implementation effort, and conceal the conditions under which an analytic result was produced.","affected_objective":"Produce methodologically defensible qualitative findings while automating only those workflow properties for which the stated scope, termination, and correctness guarantees are supportable.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"open-ended problem class","domain_realization":"Arbitrary transcripts paired with user-authored, potentially recursive coding workflows and claims about all possible executions or inputs.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"instance and computation contracts","domain_realization":"A transcript/context encoding, workflow syntax and semantics, permitted external analyst actions, and machine resource model.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"universal exact terminating guarantee","domain_realization":"The validator must always halt and correctly determine workflow termination and unique rule-consistent classification.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"constructive and impossibility evidence","domain_realization":"A total validator with proof for an enforceable fragment, or a scope-matched reduction showing why the unrestricted validator cannot exist.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"decidable regions and honest fallback","domain_realization":"A mechanically enforceable workflow fragment, bounded exploration, sound abstraction, and explicit UNKNOWN or OUT_OF_SCOPE results.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"model-relative boundary","domain_realization":"Any result concerns the formal workflow semantics; it does not establish that an ethnographic interpretation is substantively true.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Define the exact workflow property and the class of transcript-workflow pairs covered."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version the transcript, contextual metadata, workflow syntax, and encoding rules."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Declare recursion, external calls, analyst interaction, nondeterminism, and resource assumptions."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate total decision, one-sided confirmation, bounded checking, and approximation."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Distinguish tested instances from claims over every workflow and transcript."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Classify each workflow fragment as decidable, recognizable, relative, unresolved, or unsupported."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Provide a validator and termination/correctness argument for any claimed decidable fragment."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"For an impossibility transfer, exhibit a total computable source-to-workflow translation preserving the answer."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Retain a checked, scope-matched reduction if unrestricted workflow validation is shown undecidable."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record expressiveness, input promises, contextual omissions, oracle-like analyst help, and semantic assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Identify syntactically enforceable nonrecursive or otherwise proven-total workflow fragments."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Specify which defects can be confirmed by a witness without claiming that no witness exists."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, TIMEOUT, OUT_OF_SCOPE, INVALID_INPUT, and substantive disagreement distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Route to exact fragment checking, sound abstraction, bounded exploration, or accountable human review with guarantee labels."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Publish the supported guarantee beside the validator version and evidence."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reclassify after changes to workflow syntax, semantics, external tools, or allowed analyst interaction."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"State proof-based termination for exact modes and explicit budgets for bounded modes."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or quarantine workflows outside the supported fragment."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record the selected boundary, rationale, fallback, owner, and supersession history."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"List unproved obligations and semantic gaps between formal consistency and interpretive adequacy."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Have a competent reviewer check the theorem, reduction, encoding, and claimed scope."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"After decidability is established, assess whether realistic corpus and workflow sizes are feasible."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Over-approximate workflow states so a one-directional verdict is sound, while labeling possible false alarms.","counterfactual_removal":"Without it, supported workflows outside the exact fragment lose a sound automated fallback."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Enumerate all states only within a declared workflow, corpus-size, or execution-depth bound.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses a complete bounded check and must rely on sampled examples."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the boundary, shipped guarantee, assumptions, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift silently as workflow capabilities change."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Apply only after a fragment has a total procedure, to assess realistic feasibility.","counterfactual_removal":"Decidable but unusably expensive modes may be presented as operational solutions."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require an actual validator plus correctness and termination arguments for the supported fragment.","counterfactual_removal":"The positive side of the boundary would rest on benchmarks rather than a class-wide witness."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No self-referential construction is supplied; a direct diagonal argument should not be presumed.","counterfactual_removal":"No proposed causal or safety step changes."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"The packet supplies no established enumerable witness class requiring fair unbounded search.","counterfactual_removal":"The bounded, always-returning interface remains unchanged."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Dispatch each workflow to exact, sound-abstract, bounded, or human-review modes and attach the applicable guarantee.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker outputs can be mistaken for universal validation."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use only if the workflow language can computably encode arbitrary program execution and answer preservation is proved.","counterfactual_removal":"A genuine unrestricted impossibility claim would lack its principal proposed certificate."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Define a syntactically enforceable workflow fragment with a proven total validator.","counterfactual_removal":"There is no enforceable region on which the strong guarantee can be recovered."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use its totality, computability, and answer-preservation obligations to structure any reduction.","counterfactual_removal":"Reduction claims become easier to overstate or reverse."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"An unenforced promise permits authoritative behavior on violating inputs; enforceable syntax is safer here.","counterfactual_removal":"The proposed mechanically checked scope boundary remains intact."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"A single in-scope workflow that loops or defeats unique classification refutes the current universal validator claim.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses its cheapest decisive test of over-broad totality."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check any constructive or impossibility proof and its formal statement.","counterfactual_removal":"Boundary placement depends too heavily on the author's authority."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate any hardness verdict on a source-to-target, total, computable, answer-preserving map.","counterfactual_removal":"A reversed or assumption-mismatched reduction may be accepted."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"At a declared budget, return witnessed YES or UNKNOWN, never convert exhaustion into NO.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeouts can again masquerade as substantive negative results."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Formalization and proof-search infrastructure are unnecessary for the bounded first test and could certify the wrong semantic model.","counterfactual_removal":"Independent human proof review and bounded testing still gate the pilot."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative computability degrees and adaptive oracle access do not answer the immediate total-validator claim.","counterfactual_removal":"The proposed exact-fragment and fallback boundary is unaffected."}],"causal_chain":["Specify the workflow class, representation, computation model, property, quantifiers, and required guarantee.","Seek a constructive total validator for enforceable fragments while conditionally testing the unrestricted language with a scope-matched reduction.","Independently review the evidence and classify each region without treating timeout or failed search as a theorem.","Enforce fragment membership and route every other case to a labeled sound, bounded, unknown, or human-review mode.","Version the guarantee and recheck it when language semantics, external capabilities, or scope changes."],"baseline":"Ordinary baseline: validate on a finite suite of representative coding workflows, add timeouts, and let analysts manually resolve failures, while documentation retains a general valid-or-invalid claim.","nearest_rival":"Benchmark-based accuracy and robustness evaluation of an auto-coder. It can compare outputs on observed cases but cannot establish termination and correctness for every workflow in the declared class.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["research participants and represented communities","qualitative researchers and coders","method and ethics reviewers","downstream users of findings"],"decision_authority":"The research-method lead and platform owner jointly set the formal automation boundary; ethics or data-governance authority controls use of sensitive materials. The validator does not determine substantive interpretive truth.","authorized_first_step":"Run a read-only specification audit and sandboxed pilot on synthetic or de-identified workflows: formalize one property, enforce one small fragment, attempt counterexamples, and compare exact, bounded, and UNKNOWN routing.","excluded_actions":["changing live study codes or conclusions","testing on identifiable field materials without existing authorization","declaring the unrestricted class undecidable without a checked scope-matched proof","reporting formal rule consistency as ethnographic validity","collapsing UNKNOWN, timeout, or out-of-scope into invalid"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if inputs cannot be safely de-identified, fragment membership cannot be enforced, a soundness obligation fails, or UNKNOWN is consumed as a Boolean verdict. Disable automated clearance, preserve records, restore human review, and narrow or withdraw the guarantee."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would be a mechanically enforced finite or proven-total workflow language with a known total correct validator, showing that the observed difficulty is only cost or implementation quality.","analogy_break":"Formal computability concerns encoded workflows and stated properties. Ethnographic meaning can depend on context, positionality, interaction, and contestable interpretation that the encoding does not capture; a decidability result therefore cannot certify substantive truth.","failure_condition":"The intervention fails if the safe fragment excludes routine analytic work, membership is bypassable, the abstraction drops real executions, reviewers cannot validate the formalization, or downstream interfaces still coerce UNKNOWN into a decision.","problem_falsifier":"Audit falsifies the problem if no universal guarantee is claimed, every accepted workflow belongs to an enforceable finite or proven-total class, timeout is already distinct from false, and remaining failures concern only speed or empirical coding quality.","intervention_falsifier":"The boundary intervention is falsified if the bounded pilot cannot produce an enforceable useful fragment or materially reduce false Boolean verdicts, guarantee drift, and unsupported universal claims relative to ordinary benchmark validation.","risks":["A narrow fragment may remove context-sensitive practices researchers need.","Formal consistency may be mistaken for interpretive validity.","A coarse abstraction may generate excessive false alarms.","A flawed reduction may prematurely foreclose useful automation.","Human escalation may become an undocumented oracle with uneven competence and accountability.","Boundary labels may acquire institutional authority beyond their evidence."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"MECHANISM_ADAPTATION","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":0.82,"generator_notes":"The fit is conditional on the qualitative workflow language being programmable enough for class-wide termination or semantic-property claims to arise. The proposal does not infer undecidability from open-ended interpretation, timeout, or failed implementation; absent a valid encoding and proof, the unrestricted status remains unresolved."}