{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__film_media_production:P4:v0","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__film_media_production","proposal_index":4,"qualification":"DO_NOT_QUALIFY","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The remaining claim is specific and falsifiable: for a frozen audiovisual representation and enforceable finite decoder fragment, exhaustive enumeration can issue correct MINIMAL-WITHIN-BOUND certificates while preventing conflation with exact reproduction, heuristic best-found results, UNKNOWN, and unrestricted global minimality."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"NO","reason":"External evidence supports the computability theorem and general preservation stakes, but the search found no real mastering, distribution, or archival workflow making unrestricted global-minimum package claims or relying on such claims for preservation decisions. The target problem's occurrence remains hypothetical."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"Audiovisual archives, represented by archive custodians, preservation engineering teams, and format-policy officers, form a concrete partner and potential adopter class with authority over relevant records and non-production pilots."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"Access to internal optimization records and responsible staff is necessary to determine whether ambiguous global-minimum claims occur, affect decisions, and create adopter pull; ordinary public research cannot resolve these uncertainties."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A consenting archive can authorize a non-production audit, interviews, independent proof review, and synthetic-master prototype using a non-Turing-complete bounded decoder, with no alteration or deletion of authoritative masters."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed 12-week study bounds participation, records, interviews, fixtures, comparators, outputs, and failure conditions. It can decisively falsify the problem premise if no unrestricted-minimum communication is found and falsify the intervention through specified proof, enumeration, dependency, timeout, invalidation, or labeling failures."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"The verified pipeline gates contain no material NO: the problem and adopter gates are UNCERTAIN, while the testable claim, bounded evidence step, study-level safety, and cost scope are YES."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next step specifies partner records, staff interviews, a reviewed formal mapping, a bounded prototype, two comparators, 20 fixtures, recorded measures, and explicit falsification rules rather than an open-ended request for further research."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS"],"partner_profile":"An audiovisual archive or preservation repository with an authorized archive custodian or format-policy officer, preservation engineers, and recent codec, packaging, or procedural-media optimization records; ideally two institutions willing to sponsor a non-production audit and synthetic benchmark.","required_access":"Authorized read access to a bounded sample of recent optimization records, interviews with responsible staff, the institutions' current labeling and retention workflows, and participation in evaluating synthetic prototype outputs; no production masters or unrestricted decoder execution are required.","bounded_empirical_test":"Over 12 weeks with two audiovisual archives, audit 30 recent optimization records and interview 6 responsible staff; independently review the diagonal theorem against a frozen master encoding and decoder model; then compare the bounded certificate service with codec-catalog and heuristic best-found baselines on 20 specified synthetic fixtures, recording coverage, exactness, dependencies, tiers, invalidation behavior, interpretation, and resource use.","success_condition":"At least one archive documents an ambiguous or unrestricted minimum-package claim that affects a real preservation, storage, or distribution decision; an authorized owner identifies a decision improved by the tiered certificate; and the prototype passes all proof, exhaustive-coverage, exactness, dependency, timeout, invalidation, and labeling checks relative to both comparators.","falsification_condition":"The problem premise is falsified if the audit finds no unrestricted-minimum communication and staff confirm that all search universes and guarantees are already bounded and correctly labeled. The intervention is falsified if the proof-model mapping fails, any known shorter in-bound program is missed, an omitted dependency passes, a timeout becomes a negative verdict, a model change preserves a certificate, any bounded output is labeled globally minimal, or neither archive identifies an improved decision.","rationale":"This does not qualify for the empirical-partner lane because every criterion must be YES, and credible external problem signal is NO. Partner access would be the right way to test prevalence and pull, and the proposed study is unusually concrete and safe, but the available evidence establishes only adjacent preservation concerns and a mathematical boundary—not occurrence of the alleged workflow failure. The lane is not appropriate for initial problem fishing without credible external evidence that the target behavior exists."}