{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp09_archetype_breadth150_20260804","cell_id":"substrate_lineage_risk_audit__computer_science","arm":"BREADTH_PROBE_ONE_SHOT","candidate_id":"substrate_lineage_risk_audit__computer_science__P1","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Generated-Parser Lineage Gate for an Untrusted Code-Analysis Service","problem":"A network-exposed code-analysis service uses a parser copied from an older compiler repository and generated by an unidentified version of a parser generator. Reviewers inspect the service's handwritten analysis and request-handling code but exclude the generated parser, generator templates, grammar history, and runtime support library as machine-generated background. The parser originated in a trusted batch-compilation context, while the current service accepts untrusted, incrementally edited source text. Error-recovery behavior, token-normalization assumptions, recursion patterns, and runtime dependencies can therefore pass through the generation chain into the deployed parser without an owner or current-context review.","actors":["Code-analysis service team","Compiler and parsing-toolchain maintainers","Application security reviewer","Service reliability owner","Tenant submitting source text"],"observable_state":"The deployed parser cannot be reproduced byte-for-byte from a documented generator, grammar revision, and runtime dependency set; its generated-file headers or build records do not establish complete provenance; parser review begins at the handwritten adapter boundary; and bounded staging probes can compare parse time, memory use, termination, and syntax-tree output for deeply nested, malformed, recovery-heavy, and differently normalized inputs.","consequence":"An inherited parser condition may allow a tenant-controlled input to monopolize a worker, produce inconsistent syntax trees, or bypass an analysis rule, impairing service availability or the semantic consistency of findings while responsibility remains divided between the service and toolchain teams.","affected_objective":"Maintain bounded resource consumption and stable syntax-tree semantics when the code-analysis service processes untrusted source text.","intervention":"For one parser-backed language service, establish the grammar, generator executable, generator templates, generated parser, and support runtime as a single inherited substrate. Create a provenance chain from source grammar to deployed artifact; document the original trusted-input and batch-processing assumptions; trace how recovery logic, normalization, recursion, and dependencies enter the deployed parser; and extend security and reliability review across that chain. Run resource-capped context-shift probes in staging and compare the current artifact with a non-production regeneration from a declared toolchain. Register material discrepancies and choose among a request-budget adapter, isolated parser worker, regeneration, migration, or explicit time-bounded residual-risk acceptance with an owner and review trigger.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Borrowed substrate","domain_realization":"The copied grammar, parser-generator templates and executable, generated parser source, and parser support runtime beneath the code-analysis service."},{"archetype_element":"Origin conditions","domain_realization":"The parser was designed for trusted batch compiler inputs, different normalization expectations, and process-level failure rather than multi-tenant request isolation."},{"archetype_element":"Inheritance channel","domain_realization":"Generator templates and runtime libraries embed error recovery, recursion, token handling, allocation, and normalization behavior into the deployed parser."},{"archetype_element":"Local audit blind spot","domain_realization":"Generated files and toolchain internals are excluded while reviewers concentrate on handwritten request handlers and analysis rules."},{"archetype_element":"Latent concentrated risk","domain_realization":"A shared parser worker combines untrusted reachability with opaque recovery behavior, resource use, and syntax-tree semantics."},{"archetype_element":"Lineage audit and boundary extension","domain_realization":"Review scope expands from the service adapter through the generated artifact to the grammar revision, generator, templates, runtime, and relevant transformations."},{"archetype_element":"Context-shift probe","domain_realization":"Capped staging tests exercise malformed, nested, recovery-heavy, and normalization-variant inputs under the current multi-tenant request model."},{"archetype_element":"Containment or remediation","domain_realization":"A resource-budget adapter or isolated parser worker contains exposure while reproducible regeneration or parser migration is evaluated."},{"archetype_element":"Continuing stewardship","domain_realization":"Named service and toolchain owners maintain provenance evidence, upstream signals, release criteria, and residual-risk review triggers."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"provenance_chain_of_custody_record","role":"Record hashes and revisions linking the grammar, generator executable, templates, runtime dependencies, build invocation, generated source, and deployed binary.","counterfactual_removal":"Without this record, reviewers cannot distinguish inherited behavior from local modifications or reproduce the substrate used in a release."},{"mechanism_slug":"dependency_tree_static_analysis","role":"Trace libraries and generated support modules that determine parsing, normalization, allocation, and recovery behavior.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the dependency trace, a risk-bearing support library can remain outside the extended audit boundary even if the generated parser itself is reviewed."},{"mechanism_slug":"configuration_baseline_diff","role":"Compare the deployed parser and build settings with a controlled non-production regeneration from the declared grammar and toolchain.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the diff, undocumented generator versions, template changes, build flags, or manual edits remain conflated and provenance confidence cannot be tested."},{"mechanism_slug":"sandbox_or_adapter_wrapper","role":"Apply per-request time, memory, nesting, and output limits or execute parsing in an isolated worker while lineage questions are resolved.","counterfactual_removal":"Without containment, the service remains directly exposed during investigation or must choose immediate replacement without an interim control."},{"mechanism_slug":"substrate_risk_release_gate","role":"Require reproducible lineage evidence, context-shift results, and an owned disposition for material discrepancies before a changed parser enters production.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the gate, the audit can produce documentation while releases continue to inherit unreviewed parser conditions."}],"causal_chain":["A service reuses a generated parser and its toolchain lineage to avoid rebuilding language infrastructure.","The parser's generator, templates, grammar history, and runtime encode assumptions from a trusted batch-compilation environment.","Those assumptions travel into the deployed service through generated recovery logic, token normalization, recursion, allocation behavior, and transitive runtime code.","Reviewers classify the generated layer as background and stop the audit at the handwritten adapter, leaving inherited conditions unowned.","Internet-reachable, multi-tenant requests supply inputs under a threat and operating context different from the substrate's origin context.","A latent inherited condition can then manifest as non-termination, resource amplification, or syntax-tree divergence where reachability and weak observability concentrate risk.","Lineage reconstruction and context-shift probes connect observable behavior to the inherited substrate instead of treating it as an unexplained local parser defect.","Containment, reproducible regeneration, migration, or explicit residual-risk acceptance converts the inherited substrate into a governed dependency with continuing stewardship."],"baseline":"The service retains the existing parser and relies on ordinary application code review, unit tests over valid language examples, coarse request timeouts, and ad hoc upgrades. Generated files are not reviewed, the exact generator chain is not required to be reproducible, and no owner must compare the parser's origin assumptions with the current untrusted multi-tenant context.","nearest_rivals":["Generic parser fuzzing: can reveal malformed inputs that cause failures, but does not establish which generator, template, runtime, or origin assumption carried the condition into the service or assign stewardship of that substrate.","Software bill of materials and vulnerability scanning: can enumerate known packages and advisories, but may omit behavioral assumptions embedded by generator templates, grammar forks, recovery rules, or normalization choices.","Immediate parser-generator upgrade: changes the substrate without first establishing reproducibility, semantic equivalence, inherited modifications, or a safe rollback basis.","Process isolation and request timeouts: can bound some resource consequences, but do not address syntax-tree divergence, analysis-rule bypass, provenance gaps, or the decision to remediate the underlying substrate.","Hand review of generated source: inspects the artifact at one point in time but does not reconstruct its lineage, origin context, transformation chain, or upstream monitoring obligations."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate's distinguishing claim is that parser failures and semantic discrepancies should be governed as conditions inherited through a generation lineage that the current audit boundary excludes. Its intervention links provenance, origin-context comparison, behavioral probes, containment, and an owned substrate decision; it is not merely a dependency inventory, fuzzing campaign, generator upgrade, or timeout policy.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The code-analysis product owner owns deployment decisions; the application security and service reliability owners approve risk controls; the parsing-toolchain maintainer attests toolchain lineage but cannot unilaterally accept service risk.","authorized_first_step":"A designated reviewer may collect existing build metadata and hashes, reconstruct lineage from internally available artifacts, run synthetic-input probes in an isolated staging worker under fixed resource caps, and perform a non-production regeneration for comparison.","excluded_actions":["Changing the production parser or generator","Sending proprietary grammars, source samples, or binaries outside the controlled environment","Running probes against production traffic or shared production workers","Blocking tenant requests or altering customer-visible results","Accepting residual risk without the named product, security, and reliability authorities","Deleting or overwriting the current reproducible build inputs"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the probe if isolation fails, a resource cap is reached, non-synthetic data appears, or shared infrastructure is affected. Terminate the staging worker, restore its prior configuration, retain only approved diagnostic metadata, and leave the production artifact unchanged."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Complete, independently reproducible provenance may show that the deployed parser is generated from a currently maintained toolchain, that its origin threat and operating assumptions match the service context, that generated behavior is already inside the review boundary, and that capped context-shift probes show no lineage-linked discrepancy.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified if the parser substrate is fully reproducible and reviewed, current and origin contexts are materially equivalent, and every observed resource or semantic failure is attributable to handwritten local code with no operative influence from the generator, templates, grammar lineage, or runtime.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified for this service if lineage variables do not explain or stratify any observed parser behavior, the regeneration comparison adds no decision-relevant evidence, and the proposed wrapper or isolation control cannot bound the specified resource exposure or preserve syntax-tree equivalence under the test corpus.","risks":["Lineage reconstruction could expand into unbounded ancestry work without a material-risk stopping rule.","Regeneration may create large, noisy diffs that obscure rather than clarify behavioral changes.","Synthetic probes may miss production input structures or may overstate conditions that normal request limits already prevent.","A containment wrapper may become permanent and defer necessary substrate replacement.","Resource limits may reject legitimate complex source files or truncate useful diagnostics.","Two teams may each assume the other owns residual parser risk.","Hash-level reproducibility may create false confidence if origin assumptions and runtime behavior are not also examined."]},"next_evidence_step":"Over five working days, examine one deployed language parser only: identify and hash its grammar, generator, templates, runtime, generated source, and build invocation; attempt one isolated byte-for-byte regeneration; document no more than five material origin-versus-current context differences; and run a predeclared synthetic corpus covering nesting, malformed recovery, normalization variants, and input truncation under fixed CPU and memory caps. Record reproducibility, termination, peak resource use, and syntax-tree equivalence. The step ends with an evidence table and a go/no-go recommendation for a separately authorized containment pilot; it does not modify production.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"This is an isolated one-shot breadth candidate; no prior proposals or experiment candidates were inspected or used for comparison.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":["Initial one-shot formulation mapping inherited-substrate risk to generated parser toolchains."],"operational_changes":["Defined a bounded staging lineage reconstruction, regeneration comparison, and capped context-shift probe."],"evidence_changes":["No external or prior-art evidence was consulted; all statements are testable hypotheses derived from the supplied records."],"claim_changes":["Makes no claim of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size."]}}