{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__sociology_anthropology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"computability_boundary_mapping","domain_slug":"sociology_anthropology","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"universal_agent_based_model_emergence_decider_overclaim","causal_lever_id":"model_relative_solvability_with_labeled_fallbacks","proposal":{"problem":"A social-simulation project promises an analyzer that always terminates and correctly decides whether any arbitrary executable agent-based model will ever exhibit a specified collective outcome, such as segregation, norm convergence, or institutional collapse. The unrestricted model language, time horizon, and universal guarantee make this a class-level computability question, but timeouts and successful examples are being treated as substantive answers.","actors_substrate":["agent-based-model researchers","simulation-platform engineers","peer reviewers and research-governance leads","communities represented by models","policy users of simulation claims"],"observable_state":"The interface forces YES/NO for arbitrary models; timeouts become NO; finite experiments support universal language; model restrictions and external analyst interventions are undocumented.","consequence":"HYPOTHESIS: An impossible or mismatched guarantee can consume research effort and produce deceptively categorical claims about simulated collective behavior, which may then be overextended to represented populations.","affected_objective":"Produce auditable, appropriately scoped claims about emergent behavior while preserving distinctions among model verdicts, resource limits, and real-world inference.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"unrestricted input class","domain_realization":"Arbitrary executable agent-based models plus arbitrary encoded emergence predicates and unbounded horizons.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"total exact decider","domain_realization":"An analyzer required to halt with the correct reachability verdict for every admitted model.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"impossibility boundary","domain_realization":"A computable embedding from program halting into model-event reachability would exclude an unrestricted decider.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"decidable region","domain_realization":"Mechanically enforced finite-state fragments or explicitly bounded populations, states, and horizons.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"honest fallback","domain_realization":"Exact bounded checks, witness-producing searches, and UNKNOWN/out-of-scope results labeled by guarantee.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"model-relative claim","domain_realization":"A simulation verdict concerns the formal model and does not itself establish real social occurrence.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"Problem-Class Specification","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Define admitted models, predicates, and horizons."},{"component":"Instance Representation Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Version model code, initial states, scheduler, and predicate encoding."},{"component":"Computation Model Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Declare execution semantics, randomness treatment, and external inputs."},{"component":"Solvability Guarantee Profile","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Separate total decisions, one-sided witnesses, and bounded verdicts."},{"component":"Quantifier and Scope Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Distinguish every model from named models and ever from bounded time."},{"component":"Computability Status Lattice","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Classify each scope as decidable, recognizable, relative, or unresolved."},{"component":"Constructive Procedure Witness","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Require an algorithm plus correctness and termination arguments."},{"component":"Reduction Preservation Contract","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Require a total computable source-to-simulation mapping preserving answers."},{"component":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Retain the checked reduction or other proof for the exact class."},{"component":"Assumption Register","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Record expressiveness, scheduling, bounds, and oracle assumptions."},{"component":"Decidable Subclass Map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"List enforceable finite-state and bounded fragments."},{"component":"One-Sided Recognition Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Return YES only with a reproducible emergence trace."},{"component":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Keep UNKNOWN, timeout, failure, and NO distinct."},{"component":"Fallback Solution Contract","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Route to fragment decision, bounded search, recognizer, or escalation."},{"component":"Computability Guarantee Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Version-link scope, proof, method, and public wording."},{"component":"Recheck Trigger","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Reassess after language, scheduler, predicate, or external-input changes."},{"component":"Termination Condition","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Specify proof-based termination or an explicit resource bound."},{"component":"Scope Boundary","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Mechanically reject or label models outside supported classes."},{"component":"Decision Record","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record the chosen boundary and shipped guarantee."},{"component":"Uncertainty Residue","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"List unresolved proof, formalization, and real-world validity gaps."},{"component":"Independent Proof Review","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Have an independent reviewer check theorem and encoding alignment."},{"component":"Complexity Follow-On Gate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Assess feasibility only after decidability is established."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"abstract_interpretation_or_model_checking","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"No sound abstraction contract is assumed for the pilot.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; bounded exact checking remains."},{"slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Enumerate all states within a small declared model and horizon.","counterfactual_removal":"The first test loses its complete bounded reference verdict."},{"slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Version the boundary, guarantees, assumptions, and triggers.","counterfactual_removal":"Guarantees can drift without provenance."},{"slug":"computational_complexity_analysis","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Estimate scaling only for established decidable fragments.","counterfactual_removal":"Decidability could be mistaken for practical feasibility."},{"slug":"constructive_algorithm_and_correctness_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate positive decidability claims on a total correct procedure.","counterfactual_removal":"The decidable side would lack affirmative evidence."},{"slug":"diagonalization_impossibility_proof","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A direct self-reference proof is unnecessary if reduction succeeds.","counterfactual_removal":"No change to the selected proof route."},{"slug":"enumeration_and_dovetailing","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Operationally replaced by bounded semi-decision with UNKNOWN.","counterfactual_removal":"No change to the terminating interface."},{"slug":"fallback_mode_router","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Dispatch by enforceable scope and attach the actual guarantee.","counterfactual_removal":"Weaker outputs could again appear universally exact."},{"slug":"halting_problem_reduction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Test whether program halting embeds into unrestricted emergence reachability.","counterfactual_removal":"No principled impossibility verdict would support narrowing."},{"slug":"language_fragment_restriction","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Enforce a finite-state simulation fragment syntactically.","counterfactual_removal":"There is no enforceable region with a total exact guarantee."},{"slug":"many_one_reduction_proof","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use its totality and answer-preservation obligations for the halting embedding.","counterfactual_removal":"The reduction could be directionally plausible but invalid."},{"slug":"promise_problem_restriction","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Unenforced promises permit authoritative outputs on violations; use checked syntax.","counterfactual_removal":"No change; fragment membership is enforced."},{"slug":"proof_by_counterexample","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use one in-scope failure to refute the existing universal analyzer claim.","counterfactual_removal":"Refutation would depend only on proof-level evidence."},{"slug":"proof_checking","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Independently verify the reduction and constructive fragment proof.","counterfactual_removal":"A proof gap could authorize a false boundary."},{"slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Require known-undecidable source to target reachability direction.","counterfactual_removal":"A reversed reduction might be accepted."},{"slug":"semi_decision_with_explicit_unknown","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Return witnessed YES or bounded UNKNOWN, never timeout-as-NO.","counterfactual_removal":"Unsupported Boolean negatives re-enter the interface."},{"slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Formal automation is optional and could distract from semantic alignment.","counterfactual_removal":"Manual independent proof review remains sufficient for the pilot."},{"slug":"turing_reduction_analysis","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Relative oracle degrees are not needed for this boundary decision.","counterfactual_removal":"No effect on the target classification."}],"causal_chain":["Specify the unrestricted simulation class and total guarantee.","Attempt a checked halting-to-emergence reduction while seeking constructive deciders for restricted fragments.","Classify scopes without converting timeout or proof failure into a verdict.","Enforce a finite-state fragment for exact answers and route other inputs to witnessed YES, bounded UNKNOWN, or out-of-scope.","Version labels and triggers so downstream claims cannot silently regain universality."],"baseline":"Continue testing the universal analyzer on examples, apply timeouts, and emit Boolean conclusions without a class-wide proof or enforceable boundary.","nearest_rival":"A construct-validity audit asks whether the simulation represents social reality; it does not determine whether the formal reachability question has a total algorithm.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["modeled communities","research staff","reviewers","policy users"],"decision_authority":"The simulation program lead may approve research-interface changes; independent review is required for impossibility language, and no model verdict authorizes decisions over represented communities.","authorized_first_step":"Audit one model language and predicate, formalize the guarantee, check a candidate reduction, and compare the current analyzer with exhaustive search on a small finite corpus.","excluded_actions":["claiming real-world inevitability from model reachability","treating UNKNOWN or timeout as NO","deploying pilot verdicts in consequential policy","silently excluding hard inputs"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if representation fidelity, reduction preservation, or fragment enforcement cannot be independently verified; restore research-only labels and the prior non-decision workflow."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Many deployed agent-based models may have explicitly finite populations, finite state, and bounded horizons; their reachability problem is then decidable, leaving only state-space explosion rather than undecidability.","analogy_break":"Formal programs have fixed operational semantics, whereas cultural categories and real collective outcomes remain interpretive and open-system phenomena; a correct simulation verdict cannot settle the corresponding empirical social claim.","failure_condition":"The mapping fails if the admitted models are enforceably finite and bounded, or if no stable formal emergence predicate exists; the former is a complexity problem and the latter requires ontology clarification.","problem_falsifier":"Show that the actual requirement covers only a finite, effectively enumerable model class with a bounded horizon and never asserts a reusable unrestricted guarantee.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if independent review rejects the reduction and no useful enforceable fragment or honest fallback improves classification errors, abstention handling, or claim wording in the bounded pilot.","risks":["An invalid reduction may prematurely foreclose useful research.","A restricted fragment may omit socially important dynamics.","UNKNOWN may be ignored or strategically relabeled.","Exact model results may acquire unwarranted real-world authority.","Exhaustive tests may become infeasible despite decidability."]},"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":0.9,"generator_notes":"The fit is strongest for formal agent-based simulation reachability, not for interpreting social life directly. The target problem is independently recognizable, but the proposed undecidability result remains conditional on constructing and checking the stated reduction."}