{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__history_historiography","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"history_historiography","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_temporal_consistency_checking_for_executable_historical_models","causal_lever_id":"enforceable_decidable_fragment_with_labeled_fallbacks","proposal":{"problem":"Digital-history systems may promise an exact, terminating checker that decides whether every chronology reachable from arbitrary scholar-authored event rules is temporally consistent. Because unrestricted rules may encode unbounded computation, repeated timeouts neither prove inconsistency nor establish impossibility; forcing them into consistent/inconsistent outputs can misstate what the formal model supports. This concerns consistency of an encoded reconstruction, not historical truth.","actors_substrate":["digital historians and historiographers","historical-data curators","authors of executable event and inference rules","users interpreting checker verdicts","people and communities represented by the records"],"observable_state":"The checker accepts unrestricted executable rules, publishes Boolean verdicts, treats timeout as inconsistency or clearance, and lacks version-linked scope, assumptions, and UNKNOWN states.","consequence":"An impossible or unproved universal guarantee consumes engineering effort and gives formal-looking authority to unsupported historical reconstructions.","affected_objective":"Provide auditable temporal-consistency checks without confusing model-relative verification with historical truth.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"open-ended input class","domain_realization":"Arbitrary event records plus scholar-authored rules that may generate unbounded derived events.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"total exact decision demand","domain_realization":"Return consistent or inconsistent, correctly and with termination, for every admitted reconstruction.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"decidable region","domain_realization":"A mechanically enforced fragment with finite actors, bounded time/event generation, and restricted rule forms.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"one-sided evidence","domain_realization":"A witnessed reachable contradiction establishes inconsistency; exhausted resources do not establish consistency.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"governed fallback","domain_realization":"Route inputs to exact fragment checking, bounded witness search, or explicit UNKNOWN/out-of-scope review.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Define temporal consistency over encoded event-rule models."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version event, time, participant, provenance, and rule syntax."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"State rule semantics, scheduler, bounds, and external services."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Separate exact decisions, witnessed inconsistency, and UNKNOWN."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Distinguish one model, bounded models, and all admitted models."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Classify modes as decidable, recognizable, partial, or unresolved."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Supply an exact checker and termination proof for the restricted fragment."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Require a total encoding preserving reachability of contradiction."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Accept impossibility only after a checked reduction for the unrestricted rules."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record finiteness, semantics, encoding, and scheduler assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Map enforceable finite and restricted rule fragments."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Contradiction witnesses permit YES; absence remains unconfirmed."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, out-of-scope, and consistent distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Label exact, bounded, and escalated outputs by guarantee."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version the shipped claim with evidence and limits."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reclassify after rule-language, bound, or semantic changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Finite-state exhaustion or declared resource cap."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Mechanically admit the safe fragment; quarantine other models."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record selected boundary, rationale, and fallback."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"List unproved obligations and unchecked model regions."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"A reviewer checks termination, correctness, or reduction evidence."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Assess cost only after decidability is established."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Finite exact checking suffices for the first test; abstraction would add avoidable false alarms.","counterfactual_removal":"No pilot chain changes."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Exhaust every state in the enforced finite fragment.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses its exact terminating mode."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version scope, guarantee, evidence, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift or be overstated."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Measure state growth only after termination is proved.","counterfactual_removal":"Correctness remains, but feasibility is unknown."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Provide the fragment checker with correctness and termination arguments.","counterfactual_removal":"The exact-fragment guarantee lacks a witness."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A domain encoding reduction is the more relevant prospective certificate.","counterfactual_removal":"No chain changes."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"The bounded pilot does not require fair unbounded interleaving.","counterfactual_removal":"No pilot chain changes."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Route to exact, bounded-witness, or review modes with labels.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker results can be mistaken for exact verdicts."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Attempt a checked source-to-target encoding before declaring unrestricted undecidability.","counterfactual_removal":"Unrestricted impossibility remains unresolved rather than established."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use parser-enforced rule syntax guaranteeing a finite reachable state space.","counterfactual_removal":"Exact termination cannot be hard-gated."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Specify totality, computability, and answer preservation for any reduction.","counterfactual_removal":"A claimed transfer lacks its proof contract."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A syntactically enforced fragment is safer than an unenforced promise.","counterfactual_removal":"No chain changes."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use one admitted failing model to refute an overbroad checker claim.","counterfactual_removal":"Universal overclaims become harder to disconfirm cheaply."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check the fragment proof and any impossibility certificate.","counterfactual_removal":"Boundary claims rest on author authority."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate any hardness claim on source-to-target direction and named assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"A reversed reduction may be accepted."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Bound contradiction search and return UNKNOWN, never consistent, when unconfirmed.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeouts are liable to become false negatives."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Adds formalization and tooling beyond the bounded first test.","counterfactual_removal":"No pilot chain changes."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative oracle degrees do not answer the initial deployable-boundary question.","counterfactual_removal":"No chain changes."}],"causal_chain":["Specify consistency, encoding, quantifiers, and computation model.","Enforce a finite decidable rule fragment at admission.","Run the proved exhaustive checker inside that fragment.","Route other inputs to bounded contradiction search or review.","Emit witnessed inconsistency or explicit UNKNOWN with the applicable guarantee.","Record evidence, assumptions, residue, and recheck triggers."],"baseline":"Run the universal checker until completion or timeout and coerce the result into consistent/inconsistent.","nearest_rival":"A faster heuristic temporal checker that always emits a Boolean verdict but has no class-wide correctness or termination guarantee.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["scholars relying on verdicts","curators maintaining records","communities represented in historical claims"],"decision_authority":"The repository's scholarly governance board and data stewards approve scope and public wording; an independent methods reviewer approves formal guarantees.","authorized_first_step":"On synthetic, non-public models, define one finite rule fragment; implement exhaustive checking; test known consistent, contradictory, and out-of-fragment cases; attempt proof review; publish no production truth claims.","excluded_actions":["silently rewriting archival records","treating model consistency as historical truth","labeling timeout as consistent or inconsistent","deploying unrestricted Boolean adjudication","using results to suppress contested interpretations"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if fragment membership is unenforceable, an admitted case violates correctness or termination, proof review finds an open gap, or outputs are interpreted as historical truth; disable verdict publication and revert to UNKNOWN/manual review."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The admitted rule language may already be finite-state with an existing total checker; then the issue is complexity or documentation, not a computability boundary.","analogy_break":"Formal reachability concerns encoded rules only. Historical evidence, contested meanings, missing archives, and narrative adequacy are not program states, so a checked model cannot certify historical truth.","failure_condition":"The restricted fragment excludes routine research questions, produces impractical state explosion, or users bypass it through an unrestricted escape hatch.","problem_falsifier":"Inspection shows no universal exact terminating claim: the system already restricts inputs, distinguishes UNKNOWN, and makes only instance-level or bounded assertions.","intervention_falsifier":"An independently reviewed total and correct procedure handles the full declared unrestricted class under the stated computation model, making fragment restriction unnecessary.","risks":["False authority from formal verdicts","Loss of historiographical expressiveness","Biased encodings that erase uncertainty or marginalized accounts","State-space explosion inside the decidable fragment","Guarantee drift after rule-language changes","UNKNOWN outputs coerced downstream into Boolean decisions"]},"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":0.78,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. The candidate is limited to computational consistency of formal historical models; it makes no claim that historiographical interpretation itself is decidable."}