{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__security_intelligence","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"security_intelligence","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_exact_malware_behavior_classification","causal_lever_id":"formal_behavior_class_partition_with_honest_fallbacks","proposal":{"problem":"A security-intelligence platform is required to classify every arbitrary executable as either capable or incapable of a specified malicious behavior, with perfect correctness and guaranteed termination. Timeouts, sandbox silence, and failed proof searches are currently liable to become negative verdicts even though the unrestricted semantic question may be undecidable.","actors_substrate":["security-intelligence product team","malware analysts","incident responders","arbitrary executable submissions","program-analysis engines","downstream blocking and triage systems"],"observable_state":"The interface emits binary malicious/not-malicious behavior verdicts for unrestricted executables, while specifications omit program model, environmental inputs, quantifiers, termination guarantees, and an UNKNOWN state.","consequence":"Unsupported negative verdicts can suppress investigation, while repeated attempts to build an impossible universal decider consume capacity and create misleading assurance.","affected_objective":"Deliver defensible behavioral intelligence without confusing non-observation, timeout, computational impossibility, or resource exhaustion with absence of malicious capability.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"unrestricted class-wide exact terminating requirement","domain_realization":"Every well-formed executable must receive a correct yes/no answer about whether any execution can exhibit the named malicious behavior.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"semantic decision problem","domain_realization":"The target property concerns possible runtime behavior rather than merely decidable syntax.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"model-relative impossibility boundary","domain_realization":"A valid reduction would delimit only the stated executable language, environment model, property, and universal guarantee.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"restricted decidable regions","domain_realization":"Enforceable finite-state models, bounded traces, or syntactically restricted rule languages can support narrower guarantees.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"honest weaker fallback","domain_realization":"Route eligible cases to exact analysis and others to sound approximation, bounded search, one-sided recognition, or analyst escalation with explicit labels.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Define executable class, behavior property, and required decision."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version binary format, semantics, environment, and admissibility checks."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"State analyzer powers, environmental assumptions, and external services."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Distinguish total decision, one-sided recognition, sound approximation, and bounded claims."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Separate every executable/every environment claims from individual-sample findings."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Classify analysis modes as decidable, recognizable, partial, relative, undecidable, or unresolved."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Require an algorithm plus correctness and termination arguments for any decidable fragment."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Specify computable source-to-malware-instance mapping and answer preservation."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Retain a checked reduction certificate for any unrestricted undecidability verdict."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record semantics, attacker inputs, environment, oracle, and property assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"List enforceable finite-state, bounded, and restricted-language regions."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"A verified behavior witness permits YES; absent witness never implies NO."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, out-of-scope, and engine failure distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Label each routed output with its actual guarantee."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version-link model, proof, fragment, and public claim."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Reclassify after language, environment, property, analyzer, or external-capability changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Set explicit resource bounds for operational modes and return UNKNOWN at exhaustion."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or quarantine inputs outside an enforceable fragment."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record selected boundary, fallback modes, authority, and rationale."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Track unproved obligations, abstraction gaps, and unmodeled behaviors."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Have an independent reviewer check theorem, formalization, and reduction direction."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Send proven-decidable fragments to resource-feasibility analysis."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use finite over-approximations for sound one-directional fallback verdicts.","counterfactual_removal":"Fallback loses a sound approximate mode but the boundary classification remains viable."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use only for declared finite trace or state bounds.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses a complete bounded comparison mode."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the chosen boundary, guarantees, assumptions, and triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift without traceability."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Assess cost only after decidability is established.","counterfactual_removal":"Decidable but infeasible modes may proceed without a feasibility gate."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require it for exact fragment-specific claims.","counterfactual_removal":"Positive decidability placements lack total-procedure witnesses."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A reduction is more directly reviewable for this target; no direct diagonal proof is needed.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Operational deployment needs bounded termination; use the explicit-UNKNOWN protocol instead.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Dispatch by enforceable scope and attach exact guarantee labels.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker modes can be mistaken for the universal guarantee."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Map halting instances into executables whose named behavior occurs iff the source halts.","counterfactual_removal":"The central impossibility verdict lacks a target-specific certificate."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Enforce a decidable executable or rule fragment syntactically.","counterfactual_removal":"There is no enforceable exact-answer region."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Supply totality, computability, and answer-preservation obligations for the halting reduction.","counterfactual_removal":"Reduction validity becomes underspecified."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unenforced promises permit authoritative outputs on violated preconditions; prefer checked fragment membership.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use an in-scope executable to refute any overbroad analyzer claim.","counterfactual_removal":"The pilot loses a cheap universal-claim challenge."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently check the reduction and fragment proofs against the stated formalization.","counterfactual_removal":"A flawed proof could authorize misleading security guarantees."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate the source-to-target direction and assumption register.","counterfactual_removal":"Direction errors become easier to miss."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Return witness-backed YES or bounded UNKNOWN, never timeout-as-NO.","counterfactual_removal":"Operational termination recreates false negative verdicts."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Proof discovery tooling is optional; independent checking of supplied certificates is sufficient for the first test.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative degrees and adaptive oracle access are unnecessary for the proposed boundary.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change."}],"causal_chain":["Formalize the executable class, semantics, behavior property, quantifiers, and total-exact guarantee.","Test the unrestricted claim with a checked halting reduction while seeking constructive fragment procedures.","Partition inputs into enforceable exact, sound-approximate, bounded, one-sided, and out-of-scope regions.","Route each input to the strongest justified mode and preserve UNKNOWN, timeout, and failure states.","Expose guarantee labels and versioned assumptions to analysts and downstream systems.","Reduce unsupported negative verdicts and stop investment in an impossible unrestricted decider."],"baseline":"Binary malware-behavior classification using sandboxing, signatures, heuristics, or proof search, with timeout or non-observation often operationally consumed as absence of behavior.","nearest_rival":"A better-resourced heuristic malware classifier with calibrated confidence but no formal boundary, enforceable scope restriction, or explicit computability-status contract.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["malware analysts","incident responders","system owners","people or organizations affected by automated suspicion or clearance","downstream blocking teams"],"decision_authority":"The security-analysis service owner may authorize a sandboxed evaluation; production blocking or clearance remains with the accountable security authority.","authorized_first_step":"On a synthetic, non-deployable corpus, compare the baseline and boundary-aware interface across known witness cases, finite-state cases, out-of-fragment inputs, timeouts, and reduction-derived constructions; measure state-label correctness and analyst interpretation.","excluded_actions":["deploying generated malware","changing production blocklists or clearance decisions","treating UNKNOWN as benign or malicious","generalizing bounded results beyond their bound","publishing an undecidability claim before independent proof review"],"halt_rollback":"Stop if any mode emits NO after mere resource exhaustion, accepts an out-of-scope input as guaranteed, or the reduction/formalization review fails; revert to the existing analyst-only workflow and retain test logs."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The actual admitted executable set may be finite, mechanically bounded, or restricted to a language with an existing total decision procedure; alternatively, the claimed property may be purely syntactic rather than semantic.","analogy_break":"Real intelligence judgments often concern observed evidence, actor intent, or probabilistic attribution rather than the full future behavior of arbitrary programs; those tasks do not inherit this computability result without a faithful formal mapping.","failure_condition":"The intervention fails if fragment membership cannot be enforced, guarantee labels are ignored downstream, abstractions omit real behaviors, or UNKNOWN volume makes the service unusable.","problem_falsifier":"The diagnosed problem is false if requirements and interfaces already restrict inputs to an enforceable decidable class and never claim exact total classification outside it or collapse timeout, UNKNOWN, and NO.","intervention_falsifier":"In the bounded corpus test, the proposal is falsified if it does not improve correct state labeling or analyst distinction among NO, UNKNOWN, timeout, out-of-scope, and engine failure relative to the nearest rival, or if its checked reduction cannot preserve the target answer under the declared semantics.","risks":["A correct theorem may certify the wrong formalization.","Attackers may exploit public scope boundaries.","A coarse abstraction may create alert fatigue.","Restrictions may exclude operationally important samples.","UNKNOWN may be silently coerced into a binary downstream field.","A decision record may preserve a stale or erroneous boundary."]},"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":0.88,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. The candidate is limited to universal semantic behavior classification of arbitrary executables, not security-intelligence analysis generally."}