{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_light_prior_art_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__computer_science","search_lanes":{"direct_problem_and_intervention":{"queries":["automated dependency update behavioral compatibility analysis package upgrade program equivalence research","package upgrade validation behavioral equivalence automatic dependency update"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"synonyms_and_historical_terms":{"queries":["program equivalence undecidable halting reduction","semantic compatibility regression testing dependency updates","Rice theorem program verification equivalence"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_and_standards":{"queries":["Renovate automerge passing status checks dependency update official docs","CBMC bounded model checking counterexample unwinding bounds"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"component_combination":{"queries":["finite state program equivalence bounded model checking counterexample unknown","static dynamic analysis automated dependency updates test coverage false negatives","halting reduction observational equivalence two programs termination"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"CS 341 W22 Lecture 23: Undecidability","publisher":"University of Waterloo","url":"https://student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~cs341/lectures/w22/lec23.pdf","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Program equivalence—whether two programs produce the same behavior on all inputs—is undecidable.","A reduction from the halting problem establishes the result by constructing programs whose equivalence depends on whether another program halts.","The reduction direction must permit an equivalence algorithm to decide the known-undecidable source problem."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"CBMC: The C Bounded Model Checker","publisher":"arXiv","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02384","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["CBMC supports bounded property checking, counterexample generation, and equivalence-checking applications.","Bounded model checking is a semi-decision procedure; completeness requires a finite bound sufficient to reach all states.","An unsatisfiable bounded formula establishes absence of violations only within the stated unwinding bounds unless completeness is separately established."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Can We Trust Tests To Automate Dependency Updates? A Case Study of Java Projects","publisher":"Journal of Systems and Software / Elsevier","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.11921","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Automated dependency-update services rely substantially on client test suites to detect regressions.","In the study, tests covered only 58% of direct and 20% of transitive dependency calls and detected averages of 47% and 35% of injected direct and transitive faults.","The evaluated static change-impact analysis improved detection but produced false positives and had limitations involving reflection, code generation, and other unsupported behavior.","The authors recommend exposing reliability or adequacy information rather than treating passing tests as complete compatibility evidence."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Automerge configuration and troubleshooting","publisher":"Mend Renovate","url":"https://docs.renovatebot.com/key-concepts/automerge/","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","claims_supported":["Renovate can automatically merge dependency updates after required tests or status checks pass.","Its documentation recommends good test coverage and describes routing failing updates to pull-request review.","The documented workflow uses operational rules and bounded tests, not a total proof of behavioral equivalence for arbitrary packages and clients."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The problem's operational ingredients are visible: dependency-update systems can automerge after passing tests, empirical research finds substantial dependency-test coverage and fault-detection gaps, and unrestricted all-input program equivalence is undecidable. The retained evidence does not show that platform teams commonly specify the exact always-terminating Boolean oracle described in the proposal or systematically convert analyzer timeouts into unrestricted safety claims, so that organizational formulation remains only partly evidenced.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"closest_prior_art":[{"name":"Halting-problem reduction for program equivalence","source_ids":["SRC1"],"overlap":"Directly establishes the proposal's mathematical core: unrestricted all-input program equivalence cannot have a total decision algorithm, and the result is proved by reduction from halting.","remaining_difference":"It does not supply a package-upgrade decision record, fragment router, differentiated evidence labels, or repository authority policy."},{"name":"CBMC bounded verification and counterexample reporting","source_ids":["SRC2"],"overlap":"Closely matches the proposed bounded-evidence and witnessed-difference paths, including explicit unwinding bounds, finite-state completeness conditions, and concrete counterexamples.","remaining_difference":"CBMC is an analysis engine rather than an upgrade-governance contract that first classifies an unrestricted equivalence requirement and routes unsupported cases to owner review."},{"name":"Uppdatera-style hybrid dependency-update analysis within automated-update workflows","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"overlap":"Combines practical dependency-update automation with testing, static change-impact analysis, recognition of false positives and false negatives, and manual review when automation does not justify merging.","remaining_difference":"The sources do not describe an independently reviewed computability certificate, an enforceable exact finite-state equivalence fragment, or the proposed exact/difference/bounded/unknown/out-of-scope output contract."}],"prior_art_disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","contrastive_claim_remaining":"The remaining falsifiable claim is that an automated dependency-update workflow can beneficially integrate established undecidability and bounded-verification principles into an enforceable contract that: validates a finite-state fragment before granting exact equivalence, reports witnessed differences separately from bounded non-discovery and unsupported cases, and routes every nonproof state to an authorized owner without converting it into SAFE or UNSAFE. The underlying theorem, bounded analysis, counterexample practice, and test-gated update automation are prior art; their specific package-upgrade contract and routing integration remains the distinction found in this screen.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim would be falsified by an existing package-upgrade system or documented practice combining all material elements: formal adjudication of unrestricted semantic-equivalence computability, independently checked reduction assumptions, conservative decidable-fragment admission, exact equivalence only inside that fragment, distinct difference/bounded/unknown/out-of-scope outputs, and owner-controlled handling that prevents nonproof states from authorizing a merge or rejection. It would also fail experimentally if fragment membership is not conservatively enforceable or any pilot nonproof label triggers a Boolean or automatic disposition.","gates":{"adequate_source_search":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered direct package-upgrade equivalence terms, historical undecidability terminology, deployed update and verification tools, and combinations of bounded checking, counterexamples, static analysis, and unknown outcomes. Four opened sources span four publishers and include primary research, official university material, and first-party documentation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Automated test-gated dependency updates, incomplete regression evidence, and unrestricted program-equivalence undecidability are supported. Because the exact mandatory Boolean-oracle requirement is not shown to be prevalent, the problem is classified as partly supported rather than fully supported.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"distinct_testable_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Despite substantial component prior art, the integrated claim is distinct and falsifiable through fragment-admission accuracy, label correctness, routing behavior, and a search for an existing system implementing the same complete contract.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"bounded_next_test":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The twelve synthetic-pair offline exercise is bounded and can test reduction direction, observation semantics, finite-state membership, known equivalence and difference outcomes, counterexample production, and whether every output is routed without exceeding its evidentiary strength. It makes no production change or effectiveness claim.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"]},"no_obvious_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed first step is offline, preserves repository-owner and emergency-patch authority, forbids automatic merge or rejection, requires independent proof review, and specifies halt conditions for model, membership, or label mismatches. No obvious safety or authority stop blocks that exercise.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"]}},"screen_survival":true,"world_novelty_boundary":"This four-source bounded screen establishes only coarse researchability and an adjacent-prior-art disposition. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, prevalence of the exact requirement, expert acceptance, operational scalability, or realized value. Broader searches of formal-verification products, proof-carrying update systems, abstract-interpretation platforms, standards, patents, and internal platform-engineering practices could reveal a closer match."}