{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__literature_literary_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"literature_literary_theory","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_literary_interpretation_validator_overclaim","causal_lever_id":"formal_scope_and_abstention_boundary_for_interpretation_validation","proposal":{"problem":"Digital-humanities projects may promise an exact, terminating validator that decides, for every literary text and formally submitted interpretation, whether the interpretation is warranted. The independently recognizable problem is overclaiming universal interpretive adjudication when the admissible texts, interpretive rules, representations, and meaning of “warranted” are not bounded. Whether unrestricted formulations are undecidable is a HYPOTHESIS requiring a valid proof; repeated disagreement, timeout, or ambiguity is not such proof.","actors_substrate":["literary scholars and critics","digital-humanities tool builders","students and instructors","publishers or platforms presenting verdicts","authors and communities represented by analyzed works","encoded texts, annotations, interpretive claims, and critical-rule languages"],"observable_state":"The tool emits authoritative valid/invalid judgments or times out, while documentation lacks an enforceable input class, formal computation model, proof of total correctness, and distinct unknown/out-of-scope states.","consequence":"A timeout or model limitation can be laundered into interpretive refutation, while a theorem about one formal language can be rhetorically extended to literature generally; alternatively, a genuinely decidable restricted task may be abandoned as inherently uncomputable.","affected_objective":"Provide useful computational assistance for literary analysis without falsely representing bounded formal judgments as universal adjudication of interpretation.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"unbounded problem class","domain_realization":"All literary works, critical frameworks, contexts, and submitted readings are placed under one validity predicate.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"representation and model contract","domain_realization":"Texts, contextual evidence, interpretive claims, and inference rules require explicit machine-readable encodings and declared external expert inputs.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"total-exact guarantee","domain_realization":"The proposed validator must return the correct warranted/unwarranted result and terminate for every admitted pair.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"computability boundary evidence","domain_realization":"A constructive total algorithm supports a restricted positive result; a checked reduction or direct proof would support an unrestricted impossibility result.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"decidable region and fallback","domain_realization":"Mechanically enforceable annotation languages or finite corpora can receive exact bounded checks; other cases receive witness-backed YES, UNKNOWN, out-of-scope, or human interpretation.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"guarantee-labelled operation","domain_realization":"Every output names whether it is exact within a fragment, bounded, one-sided, heuristic, or human-authored.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Define admitted text–interpretation pairs and the formal warrantedness predicate."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version text, edition, annotations, contextual sources, claim encoding, and rule encoding."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Declare algorithms, proof engines, retrieval, expert input, and interaction available."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate exact-total, one-sided, bounded, heuristic, and assisted guarantees."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Expose every/all claims over texts, readings, frameworks, and contexts."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Classify each formalized task as decidable, recognizable, partial, relative, unresolved, or proven undecidable."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Require an executable validator plus termination and correctness arguments for positive claims."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"For impossibility transfer, require a total computable source-to-interpretation-instance map preserving answers."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Retain the checked reduction or diagonal proof, if one is established."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record formal semantics, encoding fidelity, framework scope, and external-information assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"List enforceable finite or syntactically restricted interpretive tasks with total procedures."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Specify which warranted readings can be confirmed by finite proof witnesses without claiming complete rejection."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, malformed, out-of-scope, and unwarranted distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Route to bounded checking, witness search, heuristic comparison, or accountable human analysis with labelled guarantees."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version the shipped claim and link it to its evidence."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Reclassify after changes to grammar, predicate, context sources, model, or expert role."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"State proof-search, corpus-size, depth, time, or step bounds."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or quarantine inputs outside the guaranteed fragment."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record why each operational mode and public claim was chosen."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"List open proof obligations and unformalized interpretive dimensions."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Have an independent reviewer check theorem, encoding, and reduction direction."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"After decidability, measure feasibility on realistic corpus and rule sizes."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No justified sound over-approximation from formal literary models to interpretive warrantedness is supplied.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal does not alter the proposed boundary test."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Enumerate every encoded case only inside a small declared corpus and rule bound.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses its complete bounded benchmark."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version scope, evidence, shipped guarantee, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift without traceability."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Apply only after a total restricted procedure is established.","counterfactual_removal":"Decidability remains classified, but practical viability is untested."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Positive classification requires a uniform validator with correctness and termination proofs.","counterfactual_removal":"Passing examples could be mistaken for class-wide decidability."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Self-reference sufficient for a direct contradiction has not been demonstrated.","counterfactual_removal":"No evidentiary path currently used is lost."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No enumerable, complete witness system for warranted readings is established.","counterfactual_removal":"The bounded protocol remains intact."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Route by enforceable class to exact, bounded, one-sided, heuristic, or human-labelled modes.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker outputs may be presented as universal verdicts."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Attempt only for a precisely formalized unrestricted validator, with source-to-target preservation proved.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses a decisive possible test of the undecidability hypothesis."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use enforceable grammars for claims, evidence relations, and inference rules.","counterfactual_removal":"The exact-answer region lacks a checkable boundary."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Defines the obligations for any hardness transfer.","counterfactual_removal":"A claimed reduction lacks a disciplined preservation contract."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unenforced promises could yield authoritative answers on violating inputs; syntactic restriction is safer.","counterfactual_removal":"No chosen guarantee changes."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use an in-scope failure to refute a claimed universal implementation, not to prove undecidability.","counterfactual_removal":"Overbroad empirical totality claims become harder to reject cheaply."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently verify formal theorem, premises, and match to the literary task.","counterfactual_removal":"A valid proof of the wrong formalization could govern deployment unchecked."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate any reduction on source status, source-to-target direction, totality, and preservation.","counterfactual_removal":"A reversed or assumption-mismatched reduction may be accepted."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Where sound witness search exists, return YES with witness or UNKNOWN at the bound, never fabricated NO.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeout can again masquerade as interpretive refutation."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Optional automation is unnecessary for the first hand-checkable bounded test and may shift attention to proof search.","counterfactual_removal":"The core classification method remains available."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Oracle degrees do not answer the immediate total-validator claim and obscure one-sided distinctions.","counterfactual_removal":"No required causal or safety function is lost."}],"causal_chain":["Formalize a recognizable validation task and its universal guarantee.","Audit encoding fidelity, quantifiers, computation model, and external inputs.","Seek a constructive total procedure and a valid impossibility proof in parallel.","Classify only what the checked evidence supports; otherwise retain unresolved.","Enforce a decidable fragment and route other inputs to explicitly weaker modes.","Label outputs and recheck when assumptions change, preventing false universal authority."],"baseline":"Ordinary practice uses close reading, scholarly argument, peer criticism, and situated judgment; computational tools retrieve patterns or score similarity without proving universal interpretive validity.","nearest_rival":"A benchmarked machine-learning classifier that predicts expert acceptance and abstains below a confidence threshold; it may be useful but offers empirical calibration, not a correctness-and-termination theorem.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["scholars whose arguments are classified","students evaluated through the tool","authors and represented communities","institutions relying on outputs"],"decision_authority":"A joint scholarly-methods and formal-methods review group may authorize only the bounded pilot; no automated result may settle publication, grading, canon formation, or cultural standing.","authorized_first_step":"On a pre-registered finite corpus and enforceable claim grammar, enumerate all encoded cases, compare exact outcomes with hand-checked derivations, attempt one constructive proof and one correctly directed reduction, and require explicit UNKNOWN/out-of-scope outputs.","excluded_actions":["claiming literature in general is computable or undecidable","treating timeout as unwarranted","automatically rejecting scholarship or grading students","generalizing bounded results beyond the registered encoding"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if an in-scope case is omitted, a supposedly exact verdict conflicts with the formal rules, UNKNOWN is coerced to NO, or independent review finds an encoding or proof mismatch; withdraw the guarantee record and revert to advisory human review."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A uniform, independently checked, terminating and correct validator for the full declared class would defeat the diagnosis; evidence that users only requested a finite corpus task would instead place the case under bounded computation.","analogy_break":"Literary warrantedness depends on historical context, contested norms, and representation choices; unlike program execution, it has no packet-established canonical semantics. Computability results apply only after a faithful formal predicate is fixed, never automatically to interpretation as such.","failure_condition":"The mapping fails if “warranted” cannot be stabilized enough to define a truth-valued formal task, or if the actual requirement is merely ranking readings rather than universally deciding them.","problem_falsifier":"Documentation and stakeholder evidence show no universal exact claim: the system is explicitly a bounded or probabilistic aid, preserves disagreement, and never equates abstention with invalidity.","intervention_falsifier":"After formalization, independent review shows the unrestricted class already has a total correct procedure, or the routing and fragment restrictions do not reduce false authoritative verdicts compared with the rival.","risks":["Formalization may erase historically or culturally significant evidence.","A decidable fragment may become an unofficial definition of legitimate criticism.","Human escalation may reproduce institutional bias while appearing safer.","Exact bounded labels may be quoted without their scope.","Proof effort may consume resources despite an ontologically unstable predicate."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"TESTABLE_CONJECTURE","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":0.76,"generator_notes":"The candidate concerns overclaiming a universal formal validator, not the broader impossibility of literary interpretation. Undecidability remains a hypothesis until representation fidelity and a checked proof are supplied."}