{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__political_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"political_science","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_executable_policy_compliance_verification","causal_lever_id":"model_relative_verification_with_explicit_abstention","proposal":{"problem":"A regulator or election authority specifies an exact, always-terminating verifier that must decide whether any submitted executable allocation or vote-tabulation policy can ever violate a formally stated equal-treatment rule over every valid future input and execution. The unrestricted claim may encompass arbitrary policy programs and unbounded state. Timeouts, successful simulations, or proof search failures then risk being reported as compliant or noncompliant without establishing whether a total verifier exists. [HYPOTHESIS] This requirement pattern can cause false regulatory clearance, unjustified rejection, and continued investment in impossible universal automation.","actors_substrate":["regulator or election authority commissioning the verifier","policy designers submitting executable rules","auditors and independent proof reviewers","people whose votes, benefits, or burdens are determined by the rules","downstream systems consuming compliance verdicts"],"observable_state":"The interface requires COMPLIANT or NONCOMPLIANT for every submitted program; unrestricted inputs and guarantees are undocumented; timeouts or failed searches are collapsed into a verdict; bounded tests are generalized beyond their bounds.","consequence":"Authorities may certify a harmful policy, reject a compliant one, conceal unresolved cases, or spend public resources pursuing a total-exact verifier that cannot satisfy its declared scope.","affected_objective":"Accountable, evidence-based oversight of executable public policies without deceptive guarantees or loss of equal-treatment protections.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"open-ended program class plus universal exact terminating guarantee","domain_realization":"arbitrary executable allocation or vote-tabulation policies checked against a formal equal-treatment property for all future inputs","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"model and representation contracts","domain_realization":"policy language, applicant or ballot encoding, state-transition semantics, and permitted external data sources","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"computability boundary","domain_realization":"classification of the unrestricted compliance question as decidable, recognizable, relative, undecidable, or unresolved","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"decidable restricted region","domain_realization":"mechanically enforceable finite-state or syntactically restricted policy language with a total checker","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"honest weaker fallback","domain_realization":"sound bounded or abstract checking that returns UNKNOWN or OUT_OF_SCOPE rather than an invented binary verdict","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"governed boundary record","domain_realization":"publicly auditable record linking the formal model, proof, shipped guarantee, exclusions, and recheck triggers","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Define the submitted policy-program class and equal-treatment decision property."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Fix encodings for policies, persons, ballots, histories, and environment state."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Declare machine semantics, external data, interaction, randomness, and human assistance."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"State totality, correctness, soundness, completeness, and termination separately."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Distinguish every program/input/execution claims from bounded or instance claims."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record decidable, recognizable, partial, relative, undecidable, or unresolved status."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"For any decidable fragment, provide its checker and proof."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Require a total computable source-to-target map with preserved answers."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Retain a checked reduction proving only the formalized unrestricted claim."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"List semantic, encoding, finiteness, oracle, and enforcement assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Identify enforceable finite-state or restricted policy-language fragments."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Specify which violations or certificates can be confirmed without guaranteeing the opposite."},{"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":"adapted","domain_realization":"Publish exact guarantees for abstract, bounded, or escalated review."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version-link formal scope, evidence, checker, and public wording."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reclassify after language, property, data-source, or execution-model changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Set explicit bounds for fallbacks and totality obligations for exact checkers."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or quarantine policies outside the supported fragment."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Record the chosen verification mode and accountable approver."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"direct","domain_realization":"List unproved obligations and unresolved semantic correspondence."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Use reviewers independent of the policy submitter and verifier builder."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Assess practical cost only after decidability is established."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use finite over-approximations for a one-directionally sound fallback.","counterfactual_removal":"Fallback loses a scalable sound analysis mode but boundary classification remains possible."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Exhaust the pilot's finite policy and input bounds without extrapolation.","counterfactual_removal":"The first test loses complete within-bound coverage."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the boundary, guarantee, assumptions, and triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Institutional drift becomes harder to detect."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate feasibility analysis after a positive computability result.","counterfactual_removal":"Decidable fragments could be mistaken for deployable ones."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Establish total correctness for supported fragments.","counterfactual_removal":"Positive decidability claims lack a usable witness."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A domain-specific direct self-reference proof is unnecessary if reduction suffices.","counterfactual_removal":"No change to the selected causal chain."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unbounded running is unsuitable for regulatory decisions; bounded explicit-UNKNOWN protocol replaces it.","counterfactual_removal":"No change because no unbounded recognizer is deployed."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Route each submission to exact, abstract, bounded, or human-review modes with guarantee labels.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker results could again be presented as universal verdicts."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Test whether unrestricted policy semantics can encode halting while preserving the compliance answer.","counterfactual_removal":"There is no decisive impossibility route for the universal claim."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Offer a mechanically enforceable policy fragment admitting total verification.","counterfactual_removal":"The intervention lacks a guaranteed-answerable operating region."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Supplies the formal obligations for the selected halting reduction.","counterfactual_removal":"Reduction review becomes less explicit, though the proof could still be constructed."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A behavioral promise is unsafe unless enforceable; syntactic restriction is preferred.","counterfactual_removal":"No change to the enforceable boundary."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Refute overbroad existing verifier claims with one in-scope failing policy.","counterfactual_removal":"Pilot loses a cheap overclaim test."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check constructive and impossibility certificates.","counterfactual_removal":"A flawed proof could authorize an incorrect public boundary."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate the source-to-target direction and assumptions.","counterfactual_removal":"A common invalid transfer becomes less detectable."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Return YES-with-witness or UNKNOWN at a declared bound, never synthetic NO.","counterfactual_removal":"Timeouts can again become deceptive negative verdicts."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Optional proof discovery adds no essential guarantee beyond independently checked certificates.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change to validity."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative degrees and adaptive oracles are unnecessary for the binary boundary question.","counterfactual_removal":"No change to the selected classification."}],"causal_chain":["Formalize the policy class, property, encodings, quantifiers, and computation model.","Seek a total constructive checker and a source-to-target impossibility reduction in parallel.","Independently check any certificate and retain unresolved status when assumptions do not match.","Enforce a decidable policy fragment where possible and route other submissions to labeled sound, bounded, or human fallbacks.","Preserve UNKNOWN and OUT_OF_SCOPE states and version the guarantee so public decisions cannot overstate the evidence."],"baseline":"Ordinary procurement relies on simulations, finite test suites, expert review, and timeouts, while the interface still demands a binary universal compliance verdict.","nearest_rival":"Expand simulation and adversarial testing of submitted policies without first classifying whether the universal exact verification requirement is computable.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["policy submitters","auditors and election or regulatory staff","voters and benefit applicants","groups exposed to unequal treatment","downstream decision-makers"],"decision_authority":"The legally accountable regulator or election authority retains certification authority; technical reviewers may classify evidence but cannot approve policy deployment.","authorized_first_step":"Run an offline pilot on a frozen formal policy language, one precisely stated equal-treatment property, and finite synthetic inputs; attempt both a constructive checker and checked reduction, then exercise UNKNOWN routing.","excluded_actions":["automatic approval or rejection of live policies","use of real individual-level data without separate authorization","claiming substantive legal equality from a proxy property","generalizing bounded results beyond their declared bounds","silently treating UNKNOWN or timeout as compliant or noncompliant"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if formal semantics cannot faithfully represent the policy claim, a proof obligation remains unchecked, UNKNOWN is coerced into a binary decision, or pilot outputs affect live rights. Revert to existing accountable human review and withdraw the automated guarantee."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The target collapses to a complexity problem if the actual policy language and state space are finite, mechanically enforced, and already have a proven total exact checker; then no computability-boundary intervention is needed.","analogy_break":"Political equal treatment can depend on contested classifications, causal effects, strategic adaptation, and legal interpretation outside executable semantics. A valid theorem about the formal model may therefore certify only a proxy, not real-world justice or legitimacy.","failure_condition":"The mapping fails if the independently recognizable issue is semantic disagreement about equality rather than a universal decision claim over executable policies, or if the deployed class is only a fixed finite set.","problem_falsifier":"Review of the operative requirement shows no class-wide exact terminating guarantee: every submission is explicitly bounded, or human judgment is the declared final decision procedure with no automation-totality claim.","intervention_falsifier":"After faithful formalization, an independently checked total algorithm decides the full declared class, or the proposed restrictions and UNKNOWN router do not reduce false binary verdicts in the bounded pilot relative to baseline.","risks":["A formally sound checker may legitimate a politically inadequate proxy.","Restricting the policy language may exclude necessary protections or shift discretion off-system.","UNKNOWN results may be distributed unevenly across groups or used to delay benefits.","Human escalation may conceal latency, competence, conflict-of-interest, or accountability failures.","An official boundary record may entrench an incorrect or stale proof."]},"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":0.84,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. The candidate is conditional on a genuinely executable, open-ended policy class and a universal exact terminating compliance requirement; substantive political equality remains outside the formal guarantee unless separately validated."}