{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__marine_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"marine_science","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_hypoxia_reachability_for_arbitrary_marine_models","causal_lever_id":"enforceable_model_fragment_and_labeled_fallback_routing","proposal":{"problem":"Marine-modeling programs may seek an always-terminating, exact analyzer that decides whether any admissible forcing will ever make an arbitrary executable ocean–ecosystem model cross a hypoxia threshold. Ensemble timeouts or absence of simulated events can then be misreported as proof that hypoxia is impossible.","actors_substrate":["marine model developers and reviewers","coastal managers and downstream decision systems","executable coupled physical-biogeochemical models","encoded initial states, forcings, and hypoxia predicates"],"observable_state":"A model-analysis request receives one of VERIFIED_REACHABLE, VERIFIED_UNREACHABLE_WITHIN_SCOPE, UNKNOWN, or OUT_OF_SCOPE, with the model class, horizon, precision, assumptions, evidence, and resource bound attached.","consequence":"Unrestricted guarantees are withheld unless proved; enforceable fragments receive exact bounded results, while other queries receive sound one-sided, approximate, or escalated outputs without converting timeout into absence.","affected_objective":"Prevent false universal assurances about modeled hypoxia while retaining useful, auditable analysis of bounded marine scenarios.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"open-ended input class","domain_realization":"arbitrary executable marine models, forcings, and unbounded trajectories","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"universal exact terminating decision","domain_realization":"decide for every admitted model whether hypoxia ever occurs under any admitted forcing","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"decidable region","domain_realization":"mechanically admitted finite-state, finite-precision, bounded-horizon model fragment","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"honest fallback","domain_realization":"bounded checking, sound abstraction, witness search, UNKNOWN, or expert escalation with guarantee labels","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Formalize hypoxia reachability over declared model and forcing classes."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version model code, state encoding, forcing grammar, threshold, horizon, and precision."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Declare finite-state checker, ordinary machine, numerical semantics, and any data oracle."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Separate total exact, bounded exact, sound one-sided, approximate, and unresolved claims."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Expose every model, any forcing, ever, and all initial-state quantifiers."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Classify requests as decidable, recognizable, relative, unresolved, or unsupported."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Retain terminating checker and correctness argument for each exact fragment."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Require computable source-to-model translation preserving the reachability answer."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Use only a checked reduction for an unrestricted executable-model claim."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Record semantics, determinism, discretization, forcing access, and threshold assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Map enforceable finite-state and bounded-horizon fragments."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"A simulated counterexample may certify reachability; non-discovery does not certify absence."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, numerical failure, and OUT_OF_SCOPE distinct from unreachable."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Route to exact, abstract, bounded, witness-search, or reviewed assessment modes."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Publish scope-linked verdict and evidence for every analyzer version."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reclassify after language, solver, precision, oracle, or guarantee changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Set explicit state, depth, time, or proof-search bounds."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or quarantine models outside guaranteed fragments."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version the chosen boundary, fallback, rationale, and owner."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"List unproved obligations and model-to-ocean mismatch."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Independent reviewer checks theorem, encoding, and reduction direction."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"After decidability, assess state explosion and operational cost."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Over-approximate model behavior on a finite abstraction; preserve one-directional soundness.","counterfactual_removal":"No sound finite fallback for some unbounded models."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Exhaust finite states, forcings, and horizons only inside an explicit bound.","counterfactual_removal":"Bounded exact verdicts lose their completeness basis."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version boundary, guarantee, assumptions, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift without provenance."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate decidable fragments for state explosion and feasible cost.","counterfactual_removal":"Decidable may be mistaken for operationally feasible."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require totality and correctness evidence for exact fragment checkers.","counterfactual_removal":"Exact guarantees lack a constructive witness."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Redundant unless a direct self-reference construction is cleaner than reduction.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; reduction evidence can establish the scoped boundary."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Fairly interleave forcing or trajectory witnesses where reachability is recognizable.","counterfactual_removal":"Witness search may starve behind nonterminating branches."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Dispatch by scope and attach the exact guarantee label.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker results can be consumed as universal verdicts."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use only if arbitrary model programs can computably encode halting while preserving hypoxia reachability.","counterfactual_removal":"Unrestricted impossibility remains unresolved rather than proved."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Admit a syntactically enforceable finite-state modeling fragment.","counterfactual_removal":"The guaranteed region cannot be reliably policed."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Formalize total, computable, answer-preserving source-to-target mapping.","counterfactual_removal":"Any impossibility transfer is materially less trustworthy."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unenforced marine-data promises could yield authoritative wrong answers; prefer checked fragments.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss because enforceable scope restriction remains."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use an in-scope model defeating a claimed universal analyzer.","counterfactual_removal":"Cheap refutation of over-broad claims is lost."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check exactness or impossibility certificates and premises.","counterfactual_removal":"High-impact boundary claims rest on author authority."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate reductions for source-to-target direction and declared assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"A reversed reduction could falsely block analysis."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Return YES with witness or UNKNOWN at the resource bound, never fabricated NO.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeout can again masquerade as absence."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Optional proof-production aid, unnecessary for the bounded first test.","counterfactual_removal":"Manual or checker-based certificates remain possible."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative degrees do not resolve the proposed operational boundary.","counterfactual_removal":"No material effect on routing or guarantee honesty."}],"causal_chain":["Make the model language, representation, quantifiers, and guarantee explicit.","Test whether exact total analysis has constructive evidence or a valid scoped impossibility proof.","Mechanically admit decidable fragments and route remaining requests to weaker modes.","Preserve UNKNOWN and attach scope-specific evidence to every result.","Downstream users stop interpreting finite search failure as proof of no modeled hypoxia."],"baseline":"Run finite ensembles or searches until the budget expires and treat no observed threshold crossing as reassuring evidence, with scope and timeout semantics often implicit.","nearest_rival":"A conventional fixed-horizon ensemble or reachability study that reports coverage and probabilities but does not classify the broader exact-decision claim.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["marine scientists and model maintainers","coastal managers and emergency planners","coastal communities whose decisions may consume the verdict","marine ecosystems represented by management decisions"],"decision_authority":"The marine-model program owner may authorize research routing; operational claims require the responsible coastal authority and independent model-governance review.","authorized_first_step":"On synthetic and archived model fixtures only, compare baseline labels with the boundary workflow for 30 finite-state, looping, out-of-scope, and witness-bearing cases; make no field or management decision.","excluded_actions":["claiming the ocean itself is undecidable","withholding warnings because an analyzer returned UNKNOWN","deploying unrestricted guarantees before independent proof review","changing sampling, treatment, fisheries, or emergency policy during the test"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if any in-scope exact verdict is wrong, UNKNOWN is converted to unreachable, scope admission is unsound, or outputs influence operations; withdraw labels, preserve logs, and revert to descriptive ensemble reporting."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The declared workload may already be a fixed finite-precision model with finite forcings and horizon; then exhaustive reachability is decidable and the real issue is complexity, not computability.","analogy_break":"The ocean is not an arbitrary program. Any impossibility result applies only to specified model encodings and semantics; observation error, stochasticity, and model inadequacy separately limit correspondence to real hypoxia.","failure_condition":"The mapping fails if executable marine models cannot express the construction needed for an impossibility proof, or if fragment membership cannot be mechanically enforced.","problem_falsifier":"Stakeholders require only calibrated probability over a fixed horizon and never claim universal exact termination, or every admitted instance is effectively finite and enumerable.","intervention_falsifier":"In the bounded comparison, the workflow does not reduce false-unreachable labels or guarantee overstatement, or it rejects materially useful cases without producing safer actionable outputs.","risks":["A formal guarantee about a model may be mistaken for a guarantee about the ocean.","Overly narrow fragments may exclude ecologically important feedbacks.","Frequent UNKNOWN outputs may be ignored or relabeled downstream.","State explosion may make decidable fragments unusable.","An incorrect abstraction or reduction may create false confidence."]},"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. Candidate is limited to computability claims about executable marine-model classes, not to metaphysical or empirical claims about the ocean."}