{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__material_culture_museum_studies","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"material_culture_museum_studies","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_software_art_preservation_verification","causal_lever_id":"guarantee_labeled_routing_by_verifiable_scope","proposal":{"problem":"Museums preserving executable and interactive digital artefacts may seek an exact, always-terminating verifier that decides, for every arbitrary artefact and emulation or migration environment, whether all curator-specified significant behaviors are preserved. For unrestricted programs and nontrivial behavioral properties, that universal requirement may exceed computable verification; timeouts or successful sample runs can then be misreported as preservation verdicts.","actors_substrate":["digital-conservation staff","curators defining significant properties","software-based and interactive collection objects","emulators, migrated builds, dependencies, and execution environments","researchers and publics relying on preserved behavior"],"observable_state":"The preservation workflow emits Boolean preserved/not-preserved results for arbitrary executable objects despite timeouts, unbounded behaviors, hidden environmental capabilities, or results established only for bounded traces.","consequence":"False assurance can authorize destructive migration or retirement of originals, while false rejection can prevent access; repeated engineering may also pursue an impossible universal verifier.","affected_objective":"Provide auditable preservation assessments without overstating behavioral equivalence or endangering collection objects.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"open-ended problem class","domain_realization":"Arbitrary executable collection objects, environments, interactions, and curator-specified behavioral properties form the claimed verification class.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"total exact decision requirement","domain_realization":"The proposed verifier must return a correct preserved/not-preserved answer and terminate for every admitted object-environment pair.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"model-relative impossibility boundary","domain_realization":"A valid reduction from program halting or another established source would delimit which unrestricted behavioral claims cannot have such a verifier.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"weaker honest fallback","domain_realization":"Enforceable fragments, bounded trace checks, sound abstractions, and expert escalation return guarantee-labeled results including UNKNOWN.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Define the class of executable artefacts, environments, interactions, and preservation properties."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version the package, environment image, inputs, dependency assumptions, and property specification."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Declare emulator powers, sensors, network services, human inputs, and oracle-like external resources."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Distinguish total exact decisions from sound checks, bounded evidence, and expert judgments."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record whether claims cover all programs, all interactions, one environment, or bounded traces."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Classify each preservation query as decidable, recognizable, partial, relative, undecidable, or unresolved."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"direct","domain_realization":"For any decidable fragment, supply its terminating verifier and correctness argument."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Specify a total computable encoding preserving the answer from a known source problem."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Retain the checked reduction or direct proof for the precisely stated unrestricted claim."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"List formalization, encoding, environment, property, and external-capability assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Map finite-state works, bounded interactions, restricted scripting languages, and other enforceable fragments."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Permit witness-backed confirmation where only one side is recognizable."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, out-of-scope, false, and system failure distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Label abstraction, bounded testing, and expert review with no stronger guarantee than each supplies."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version-link the shipped verifier, scope, proof, and public preservation wording."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Reassess when the object language, emulator, dependencies, property schema, or external services change."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Set explicit finite bounds for operational analyses and return UNKNOWN when exhausted."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Mechanically admit supported fragments and quarantine other queries."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record why each verification mode and guarantee was authorized."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Preserve unproved obligations and behaviors not covered by the model."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Have an independent reviewer check the theorem, encoding, and reduction direction."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"After decidability is established, assess whether collection-scale execution is feasible."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use sound finite abstractions for specified safety or reachability properties, preserving false-alarm caveats.","counterfactual_removal":"Fewer useful sound fallbacks remain, but the boundary proof survives."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Exhaustively check finite interaction depths or state spaces without generalizing beyond them.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses a complete bounded mode."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the boundary, guarantees, evidence, and recheck triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift silently."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate decidable fragments into resource-feasibility assessment.","counterfactual_removal":"Decidable but unusable modes may be deployed."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require totality and correctness proofs for exact restricted verifiers.","counterfactual_removal":"Positive decidability placements lack witnesses."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A direct diagonal proof is unnecessary if a clearer reduction is available.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unbounded recognizer execution is unsuitable for the bounded operational interface.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Route each query to exact, abstract, bounded, or expert mode and attach its guarantee.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker results can again masquerade as universal verdicts."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Attempt a precise source-to-target encoding for the unrestricted behavioral verifier.","counterfactual_removal":"The claim remains unresolved rather than proved impossible."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Admit a syntactically enforceable decidable artefact or property language.","counterfactual_removal":"There is no hard-gated exact region."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use it as the formal structure of the impossibility transfer.","counterfactual_removal":"Reduction obligations become less explicit."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unenforced promises permit authoritative outputs on violating collection objects; prefer checked syntax.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use an in-scope failing artefact to refute any overbroad implementation claim, not to prove undecidability.","counterfactual_removal":"Cheap claim-refutation is lost."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently verify the reduction, theorem, and formalized target.","counterfactual_removal":"A flawed impossibility claim could improperly narrow preservation work."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate the source-to-target direction and enumerate assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"Direction errors become likelier."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"At a resource bound, emit UNKNOWN rather than NOT PRESERVED.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeouts can become false negatives."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Formal proof tooling is optional and could distract from validating the domain formalization.","counterfactual_removal":"Manual independent checking remains viable."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative computability degrees are unnecessary for the initial boundary decision.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."}],"causal_chain":["An unrestricted exact verifier is stated over arbitrary executable artefacts and behavioral properties.","A checked reduction tests whether that total guarantee is impossible under the declared computation model.","Enforceable fragments identify where exact terminating verification is legitimate.","A router sends other cases to sound abstraction, bounded search, or accountable expert review.","Guarantee labels and explicit UNKNOWN prevent incomplete evidence from becoming a Boolean preservation verdict.","Versioned records and triggers prevent later scope or environment changes from silently inheriting old guarantees."],"baseline":"Ad hoc emulation and migration testing on selected interactions, followed by curator judgment, with timeouts and evidentiary limits described inconsistently.","nearest_rival":"A universal heuristic verifier trained or benchmarked on the current collection that always returns preserved/not-preserved but lacks a class-wide correctness and termination guarantee.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["artists and rights holders","source communities and donors","collection-care staff","researchers and publics","institutions responsible for custody"],"decision_authority":"The museum's delegated digital-conservation and collections-governance authorities jointly approve scope and guarantee language; curators define significant properties, while an independent reviewer gates formal claims.","authorized_first_step":"Run an offline shadow pilot on 30 already-accessioned executable objects: formalize one narrow property per object, classify scope, route analyses, measure UNKNOWN and disagreement rates, and independently review one proposed reduction. Do not change preservation status from pilot output.","excluded_actions":["discarding originals or dependencies","irreversible migration","automatic deaccession or access denial","treating UNKNOWN or timeout as not preserved","publishing an undecidability claim before formalization and independent review"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if the reduction fails review, abstraction soundness is unsubstantiated, any mode emits an unlabeled Boolean outside scope, or pilot execution threatens an object or environment. Revert to existing curator-led assessment and retain originals and logs."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The actual institutional requirement may cover only a finite, fixed collection and finitely bounded interaction traces. Then exhaustive verification may be decidable in principle, and the real issue is cost or semantic adequacy rather than computability.","analogy_break":"Physical objects, cultural significance, and curator interpretation are not programs. The mapping applies only after an executable object, environment, and behavioral property are faithfully formalized; it cannot establish preservation of meanings omitted from that model.","failure_condition":"The proposal fails if fragment membership cannot be enforced, significant properties cannot be represented without losing the museum's actual claim, or downstream decisions collapse guarantee labels into a single authoritative status.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if no stakeholder or system requires a total exact answer over an open-ended executable class and all operational claims are explicitly finite, bounded, or instance-specific.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if, despite correct routing and training, the pilot still produces or induces false Boolean preservation verdicts outside verified scope, or if independent checking finds that the reduction does not preserve the target answer.","risks":["Formalization may erase culturally significant behaviors or dependencies.","An impossibility theorem may be overextended from software behavior to cultural interpretation.","High UNKNOWN rates may make the service operationally useless.","False alarms from coarse abstractions may divert scarce conservation effort.","Boundary labels may acquire unwarranted institutional authority."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"DOMAIN_TRANSFER","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":0.81,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. The candidate is intentionally limited to executable digital artefacts and formal behavioral preservation claims; it does not characterize cultural interpretation itself as computable or undecidable."}