{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__futurism_foresight","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"futurism_foresight","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"unbounded_executable_scenario_assurance","causal_lever_id":"enforceable_scenario_fragment_and_labeled_fallbacks","proposal":{"problem":"Foresight programs increasingly represent scenarios, actors, triggers, and policies as executable rules, then require an analyzer to decide, for every admissible model, whether a strategy reaches or preserves a target condition under all allowed futures. The input language, quantifiers, and termination guarantee are often implicit; timeouts or failed searches may therefore be reported as strategic infeasibility, while success on sampled scenarios is presented as universal assurance. [HYPOTHESIS]","actors_substrate":["foresight analysts authoring executable scenario models","strategy owners relying on robustness claims","software teams building scenario analyzers","governance and audit reviewers","communities affected by strategies justified by the analysis"],"observable_state":"The analyzer exposes Boolean robust/not-robust outputs for open-ended executable models, while documentation does not distinguish proof, bounded coverage, timeout, out-of-scope input, or unknown.","consequence":"Decision makers may reject viable strategies, accept unproved universal claims, or continue funding a total-exact analyzer whose declared class has not been shown decidable.","affected_objective":"Reliable long-range strategy selection, honest assurance, and efficient allocation of foresight-development resources.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"open-ended problem class","domain_realization":"Executable scenario-and-policy models with user-defined transition rules and unbounded horizons","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"universal exact terminating guarantee","domain_realization":"Decide for every admitted model whether the strategy satisfies the target across all permitted futures","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"computability-model boundary","domain_realization":"Classification relative to the scenario grammar, horizon, quantifiers, external data, and allowed expert interaction","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"decidable restricted region","domain_realization":"Mechanically enforced finite-state or otherwise proved-decidable scenario-language fragment","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"honest weaker fallback","domain_realization":"Sound abstraction, bounded exploration, or witness search returning labeled UNKNOWN rather than fabricated rejection","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"reclassification trigger","domain_realization":"Changes to grammar, horizon, quantifiers, target property, oracle, or data semantics trigger renewed analysis","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Define the admitted scenario models and strategic property."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version the grammar, encoding, horizon, and well-formedness rules."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Declare machine resources, external data, experts, and interactive queries."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate total decision, recognition, sound approximation, and bounded coverage."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Expose every-model, every-future, and finite-horizon quantifiers."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Classify fragments as decidable, recognizable, relative, unresolved, or potentially undecidable."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Provide an analyzer plus correctness and termination arguments for any decidable fragment."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Require a computable, property-preserving translation before transferring impossibility."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Use only a checked proof matching the executable scenario language."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record grammar, semantics, horizon, environment, and oracle assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Map enforceable finite-state or restricted-rule fragments."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Specify which strategy-property witnesses can yield definitive YES."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, out-of-scope, false, and failure distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Label abstraction, bound, soundness direction, and escalation behavior."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Publish a versioned guarantee linked to evidence."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Reassess after language, property, horizon, or external-capability changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Set proof-backed termination or an operational resource bound."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or quarantine inputs beyond the guaranteed fragment."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record the selected boundary, rationale, and fallback."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"direct","domain_realization":"List unproved obligations and empirically unresolved semantics."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Have an independent reviewer check formal claims and model fidelity."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Assess cost only after decidability or bounded termination is established."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use finite over-approximations only with an explicit soundness direction.","counterfactual_removal":"Fallback loses a potentially sound assurance mode."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Exhaust finite models or horizons and prohibit extrapolation beyond the bound.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot lacks a terminating complete bounded check."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the boundary, guarantee, evidence, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift without traceability."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Run after a fragment is classified as decidable.","counterfactual_removal":"Computable but unusable fragments may be shipped."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require a total analyzer and proof for every claimed decidable fragment.","counterfactual_removal":"Positive decidability claims rest only on examples."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No packet evidence supplies a scenario-specific diagonal construction.","counterfactual_removal":"No change to the proposed first test."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use only if the target property is proved recognizable; that is unresolved.","counterfactual_removal":"No current causal change."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Route by enforceable class to exact, bounded, abstract, or escalation modes with labels.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker guarantees can again appear as universal answers."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Do not claim undecidability until a property-preserving embedding is produced.","counterfactual_removal":"The candidate remains unresolved rather than overclaiming impossibility."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Define a mechanically checkable scenario grammar with proved termination.","counterfactual_removal":"There is no enforceable guaranteed-answer region."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use if an impossibility transfer is attempted; check totality and biconditional preservation.","counterfactual_removal":"A future hardness claim loses its proper evidence route."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unenforced promises permit authoritative answers on violating inputs; prefer syntactic enforcement.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss because fragment restriction supplies a safer boundary."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use an in-scope failing model to refute any current universal analyzer claim.","counterfactual_removal":"Cheap falsification of over-broad totality claims is lost."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check proofs and confirm the theorem matches the real claim.","counterfactual_removal":"Subtle proof gaps can authorize unsafe assurance."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate any reduction-based impossibility conclusion.","counterfactual_removal":"Reversed or assumption-mismatched reductions may pass review."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Where only sound witness search exists, terminate at a bound with UNKNOWN, never NO.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeout is likely to be collapsed into strategic infeasibility."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Optional tooling adds no guarantee without a faithful formalization and certificate.","counterfactual_removal":"Hand or mechanical checking can still discharge the pilot."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative degrees are unnecessary for the bounded operational decision.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change to viability."}],"causal_chain":["Specify executable scenario syntax, semantics, strategic property, quantifiers, and computational capabilities.","Attempt a constructive total procedure and an independently checked impossibility argument without treating failed search as evidence.","Carve out only mechanically enforceable fragments with proved guarantees.","Route admitted instances to exact, sound-abstract, bounded, or explicitly UNKNOWN modes.","Preserve guarantee labels in outputs and records, preventing timeout and limited coverage from becoming universal strategic claims.","Test whether users make better-calibrated strategy decisions with acceptable coverage loss."],"baseline":"A general scenario analyzer runs until success or timeout and emits or invites a Boolean interpretation without a versioned scope-and-guarantee contract.","nearest_rival":"Ordinary validation and performance engineering on a finite benchmark suite; it can improve reliability and speed but cannot establish a class-wide totality or impossibility result.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["strategy owners","foresight practitioners","analyzer operators","people exposed to resulting policies"],"decision_authority":"The accountable strategy-governance body approves public guarantees; technical reviewers may certify proofs but may not decide policy acceptability.","authorized_first_step":"On archived, non-live models, define one finite-state fragment and one out-of-fragment set; compare the current analyzer with exhaustive checking and a three-state fallback interface.","excluded_actions":["Claiming the unrestricted language undecidable without a valid proof","Treating timeout or UNKNOWN as evidence that a strategy fails","Automatically changing live strategy or policy","Concealing excluded scenarios or expressiveness loss"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if the fragment checker admits an out-of-scope model, a supposedly sound verdict conflicts with exhaustive results, labels are lost downstream, or affected-party review identifies unacceptable exclusion; revert to advisory outputs and the prior human review process."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The deployed model class may already be finite, mechanically bounded, and handled by a known total procedure; observed failures could then be only complexity, implementation, or data-quality problems.","analogy_break":"Formal computability concerns encoded model behavior, whereas real futures are open, empirically contingent, and semantically revisable. A proof about the model cannot establish that the model faithfully represents society or that its target is normatively legitimate.","failure_condition":"The enforceable fragment excludes most decision-relevant models, sound abstractions produce unusable alarm rates, or downstream systems still collapse UNKNOWN into rejection.","problem_falsifier":"Audit shows every claimed input is effectively finite and enumerable, all outputs already distinguish timeout and uncertainty, and no class-wide guarantee beyond the finite scope is asserted.","intervention_falsifier":"In the bounded comparison, explicit boundary routing and labels do not reduce false universal interpretations or resource waste relative to baseline, while materially reducing useful scenario coverage.","risks":["Decision makers may mistake formal assurance for empirical forecast accuracy.","Restrictions may exclude rare but consequential futures.","UNKNOWN may be institutionally treated as NO despite interface labels.","A flawed abstraction may create false confidence.","Formalization may encode the wrong strategic property.","Complexity may make a decidable fragment operationally unusable."]},"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":0.82,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. The candidate does not assert that unrestricted executable foresight models are undecidable; that status remains unresolved until a model-matched constructive proof or impossibility certificate exists."}