{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__film_media_production:P3:v0","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__film_media_production","proposal_index":3,"qualification":"DO_NOT_QUALIFY","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The scope-enforced router makes a specific falsifiable contrast: exhaustive bounded search may certify within-bound infeasibility, whereas incomplete open search must return UNKNOWN, with fair dovetailing expected to find witnesses that sequential evaluation starves."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"NO","reason":"Sources support adjacent workflow ambiguity and automated-editor failures, but none demonstrates the asserted operational problem: an unrestricted editorial planner treating timeout or incomplete search as proof that no cut exists."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"Studio production-technology teams, post-production vendors, broadcasters, and NLE or workflow providers are concrete adopter classes capable of supplying workflow evidence and pilot authority."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Proprietary workflow artifacts and stakeholder participation are necessary to determine whether timeout is actually represented as infeasibility, whether bounded briefs fit real work, and whether an authorizer wants the remedy; public research cannot resolve these uncertainties."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A synthetic, non-production study can be authorized by a pipeline engineering or research lead, preserves editorial and delivery authority, and has explicit halt conditions without exposing active productions."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"NO","reason":"The 20-brief comparative study can decisively test technical routing, completeness, checker behavior, and fairness, but it cannot decide the material opportunity uncertainties of real problem prevalence, adopter pull, or live workflow fit."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"NO","reason":"Two material gates remain UNCERTAIN: externally supported problem and externally credible adopter or authorizer. The absence of direct workflow evidence and named pilot authority is central rather than incidental."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed next step is an executable, comparator-based prototype study with fixed cases, measures, and falsification rules, not an open-ended request for additional research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A studio, broadcaster, post-production vendor, or NLE/workflow provider operating automated or constraint-driven editorial planning, with a production-technology lead able to authorize observation and an editor or delivery approver able to interpret current result semantics.","required_access":"A redacted interface specification, decision log, incident record, or observed run showing how incomplete search is labeled; interviews with the responsible engineering and editorial roles; representative bounded briefs; and authority to run a non-production shadow comparison without affecting release decisions.","bounded_empirical_test":"First verify the reduction independently, then run the frozen 20-brief synthetic comparison among the proposed bounded-enumeration/dovetail router, binary timeout-to-NO-CUT sequential search, and an honest fixed-bounded optimizer. A separate partner-supplied workflow observation would be required to test whether the target problem and adoption premise exist in practice.","success_condition":"The reduction passes all stated proof obligations; the prototype produces no missed in-bound witness, invalid certificate, starved constructed witness, or UNKNOWN-to-NO-CUT conversion; and partner evidence confirms that incomplete search is currently or plausibly rendered as infeasibility and that an authorized adopter wants a bounded shadow pilot.","falsification_condition":"Fail if the reduction is invalid, any technical safety invariant fails, the partner workflow already uses enforced finite scopes and honest UNKNOWN semantics, stakeholders seek only candidate generation and never infer infeasibility, or no authorized adopter is willing to evaluate the intervention.","rationale":"The architecture retains a differentiated and technically testable claim, has a safe prototype path, and points to identifiable partner classes. It does not qualify for the narrow empirical-partner lane because credible evidence of the exact problem is missing, the identified adopters have not expressed pull or granted authority, and the sealed synthetic experiment is not decisive for those opportunity premises. Partner-specific field evidence would need to be incorporated into a bounded empirical design before qualification."}