{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_external_scrutiny_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance","opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__economics_finance__C","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["undecidability verify smart contract arbitrary program termination safety solvency","algorithmic trading strategy verification undecidable solvency all market paths","smart contract formal verification unknown timeout sound incomplete analysis","financial regulator algorithmic trading pre trade controls testing requirements automated trading systems","\"solvency\" smart contract formal verification","formal verification algorithmic trading strategy risk all market scenarios"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC6"],"no_result_note":"No retained source documented a supervisor or venue demanding an exact terminating Boolean solvency classifier for every arbitrary strategy and every market path. Sources instead document risk-control, testing, scoped verification, and abstaining or incomplete tools."},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["\"solvent\" \"smart contract\" verification model checking","undecidable financial contracts program verification solvency","Certora Prover timeout unknown verification result documentation","finite state bounded model checking smart contracts decidable fragment verification"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["historical program verification undecidability total correctness halting problem safety properties static analysis false positives","abstract interpretation sound static analysis unknown timeout incomplete verifier","decidable verification unrestricted programs coherent programs"],"source_ids":["SRC5","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["formal verification smart contract standard scope assumptions result inconclusive ITU F.751.12","ESMA RTS 6 algorithm testing validation scenarios limits pre deployment official","algorithmic trading risk controls standard kill switch testing venue first party","Certora Prover timeout unknown verification result documentation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["site:bafin.de algorithmischer Handel Tests Systeme Kontrollen Algorithmen","site:amf-france.org trading algorithmique tests contrôles algorithmes avant déploiement","Überprüfung Smart Contracts Unentscheidbarkeit formale Verifikation unbekannt Zeitüberschreitung","verificación formal contratos inteligentes indecidible tiempo de espera desconocido"],"source_ids":["SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["finite state bounded model checking smart contracts decidable fragment verification","oracle external calls smart contract formal verification assumptions environment","\"solvency\" smart contract formal verification","formal verification smart contract unknown timeout decidable subclass"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Multi-firm review of algorithmic trading controls: high-level observations","url":"https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/multi-firm-reviews/algorithmic-trading-controls-high-level-observations","publisher":"UK Financial Conduct Authority","date_or_year":"2025","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Algorithmic trading presents inherent risks, and controls must keep pace with market and algorithm complexity.","Some firms used insufficiently sophisticated simulation scenarios or lacked documented testing and deployment procedures.","Controlled deployment, documented senior approval, scoped controls, and scrutinized pilot trades are identifiable operational practices.","The observed regulatory package is testing and layered controls, not a universal solvency guarantee."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Algorithmic Trading","url":"https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/algorithmic-trading","publisher":"Financial Industry Regulatory Authority","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["FINRA identifies firms using algorithmic strategies as responsible adopters of pre-production testing, validation, supervision, and post-deployment review.","FINRA recommends cross-disciplinary governance rather than reliance on a single pre-deployment classifier.","The guidance establishes identifiable compliance and strategy-development owners."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"SMTChecker and Formal Verification — Solidity documentation","url":"https://docs.solidity.org/en/latest/smtchecker.html","publisher":"Solidity Project","date_or_year":"2026 documentation","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["The SMTChecker explicitly reports an unknown result when neither case is proved within the timeout and preserves soundness by reporting a potential failure.","Verification targets, engines, deployed-contract scope, external-call assumptions, unsupported features, and time budgets are configurable.","Unsupported features are over-approximated to preserve soundness, potentially producing false positives.","The tool already implements much of the proposed scope, assumption, timeout, unknown, and sound-incomplete behavior."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Timeouts — Certora Prover Documentation","url":"https://docs.certora.com/en/latest/docs/user-guide/out-of-resources/timeout.html","publisher":"Certora","date_or_year":"2026 documentation","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Certora distinguishes hard and soft timeout conditions and exposes them as report states rather than proofs.","Timeout reports identify solved and unresolved portions and diagnose complexity causes.","The product recommends modularization and separate verification of components when full-system proof times out.","A commercial verification practice already operationalizes diagnosed non-success states and scoped fallback analysis."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Decidable Verification of Uninterpreted Programs","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00192","publisher":"Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages / arXiv","date_or_year":"2019","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Completely automatic verification is undecidable for the studied unrestricted program class.","A restricted coherent subclass admits decidable verification in PSPACE.","The result directly supports mapping an undecidable general class to enforceable decidable subclasses, while also showing that restrictions require formal justification."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Solvent: Liquidity Verification of Smart Contracts","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17864","publisher":"arXiv","date_or_year":"2024","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Liquidity across every reachable state is a recognized smart-contract verification problem closely related to financial solvency.","Existing Solidity tools were reported as ineffective for expressing and verifying the studied liquidity properties.","Solvent implements and benchmarks a specialized verifier rather than claiming unrestricted verification of arbitrary executable contracts and external markets."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Verifying Liquidity of Bitcoin Contracts","url":"https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/1125","publisher":"IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive","date_or_year":"2018; revised 2019","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Frozen funds make liquidity verification an economically material smart-contract problem.","Liquidity is decidable for the restricted BitML contract language used by the paper.","The decision procedure depends on a sound-and-complete finite-state abstraction and model checking, closely matching the proposed restricted-fragment lever."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Systèmes et contrôles dans un environnement de négociation automatisé (Position AMF DOC-2012-03)","url":"https://www.amf-france.org/sites/institutionnel/files/doctrine/attachment/DOC-2012-03/Position_AMF_2012-03.pdf","publisher":"Autorité des marchés financiers","date_or_year":"2012","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"French","claims_supported":["French guidance requires investment firms to test electronic trading systems and algorithms before deployment and updates.","The regional terminology and practice center on embedded compliance and risk controls, not exact universal pathwise solvency classification.","Investment firms and their control functions are identifiable adopters or authorizers."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The underlying conditions are real: algorithmic trading creates material risks, some firms have weak scenario testing or governance, unrestricted automatic verification is undecidable in closely relevant program models, and deployed smart-contract verifiers encounter unknowns, timeouts, unsupported features, and scope assumptions. However, the defining organizational claim was not established: no retained source showed a supervisor or venue requiring a total exact safe/unsafe solvency verdict for every arbitrary executable strategy and every admissible market path. Official supervisory practice instead uses testing, limits, surveillance, controlled deployment, and human governance.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"Public guidance may omit internal procurement specifications and classifier interfaces. The search cannot determine whether a particular venue silently collapses timeout or unknown into a Boolean admission result."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Investment firms, broker-dealers, trading venues, compliance and risk functions, and senior algorithm-approval owners are identifiable. FCA, FINRA, and AMF materials assign pre-deployment testing, controls, documentation, supervision, and approval responsibilities to these actors. Smart-contract developers and assessors are also identifiable users of Solidity and Certora verification workflows.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The sources establish responsibility for algorithm and contract assurance, but not expressed demand for the full proposed computability-classification record."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Most technical mechanisms are demonstrably implementable: explicit unknown and timeout results, configurable verification scope and assumptions, sound over-approximation, modular fallback, decidable restricted languages, finite-state abstraction, and specialized liquidity verification all exist. Controlled pilots and documented approvals also exist in algorithmic-trading governance. No retained source demonstrated the complete package—formal impossibility certificate, machine-enforced fragment admission, public computability status, differentiated failure-state UX, independent proof review, and distributional assessment—inside a supervisory or venue solvency-admission workflow.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"uncertainty":"Semantic faithfulness from executable trading code plus market paths and oracles to a formal solvency predicate remains unvalidated."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Solidity SMTChecker result and scope model","source_ids":["SRC3"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Implements explicit unknown-on-timeout behavior, sound incomplete analysis, configurable targets and engines, unsupported-feature reporting, and external-call assumptions for smart-contract safety properties including balance checks.","remaining_difference":"It does not classify the computability of universal strategy solvency under arbitrary market paths, enforce venue admission fragments, or provide the proposed governance and pilot record."},{"name":"Certora timeout diagnosis and modular verification workflow","source_ids":["SRC4"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Treats timeouts as diagnosed non-proof states, reports unresolved portions, and recommends modular scoped verification.","remaining_difference":"It is a verifier product workflow, not a regulator- or venue-governed computability boundary map for solvency claims."},{"name":"Solvent liquidity verifier","source_ids":["SRC6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Targets an all-reachable-states financial property of smart contracts and creates a specialized verifier evaluated on benchmarks.","remaining_difference":"Liquidity is narrower than balance-sheet solvency under arbitrary external market paths; the source does not claim a total classifier for arbitrary code or implement the proposed decision governance."},{"name":"Decidable liquidity for BitML contracts","source_ids":["SRC7"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Obtains a terminating liquidity decision procedure by restricting the contract language and constructing a sound-and-complete finite-state abstraction.","remaining_difference":"The proof applies to BitML and its modeled context, not unrestricted trading programs, market oracles, or venue admission policy."},{"name":"General undecidability with a decidable coherent-program subclass","source_ids":["SRC5"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Pairs an undecidability result for the general verification problem with a formally characterized decidable subclass.","remaining_difference":"It is general program-verification theory rather than a semantically faithful reduction for financial solvency or an operational supervisory workflow."},{"name":"Supervisory algorithm testing and controlled deployment","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Uses pre-deployment testing, scenario analysis, scoped controls, documented approvals, staged deployment, and continuing review to reduce algorithmic-trading risk.","remaining_difference":"These sources neither promise universal exact classification nor explicitly map computability boundaries or preserve distinct unknown and undecidable statuses."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"For an actual venue or supervisory workflow whose tools presently conflate timeout, unsupported scope, and Boolean risk decisions, adding a versioned model-relative computability record, machine-enforced fragment gate, and separately rendered unknown/timeout/out-of-scope states will reduce false Boolean resolutions and improve reviewer interpretation without materially increasing unjustified exclusions, compared with existing testing and heuristic review.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if a workflow audit finds that current systems already enforce the same scope and status distinctions, or if a blinded offline pilot shows no improvement in classification soundness or user interpretation, more false Boolean resolutions, unenforceable fragment membership, or disproportionate exclusion.","confidence":"MODERATE","search_limitations":"The bounded search covered all six lanes and retained exactly eight opened or fetch-attempted sources from seven publisher families, including official guidance, first-party product documentation, and primary research. The AMF PDF was search-indexed but direct fetching returned an access restriction. No patent, proprietary venue specification, internal risk manual, procurement record, paywalled corpus, or exhaustive multilingual database was searched. The evidence cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"External evidence supports algorithmic-risk-control deficiencies and the technical impossibility or incompleteness of unrestricted verification, but does not establish the proposal's defining deployed requirement: a universal exact terminating solvency classifier or operational collapse of unknown into safe/unsafe.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Regulated investment firms, broker-dealers, venue operators, compliance and risk functions, and senior algorithm-approval owners have explicit testing, control, and deployment responsibilities.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Despite close technical analogues, the venue-level combination of computability classification, enforced fragment admission, differentiated non-verdict states, and measured reviewer interpretation remains distinct and falsifiable against existing review.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A fixed-corpus, versioned, offline comparison can measure proof-label agreement, abstentions, status interpretation, and exclusion effects without live orders or capital. FCA evidence shows controlled, scrutinized pilot deployment and documented approval are feasible practices.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The next step can remain read-only and offline under an existing venue or firm risk owner, with independent labels, no automatic admission, automatic expiry, and rollback to existing controls. No source identifies a legal or safety prohibition on such evaluation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The search covered direct formulations, closest art, historical terminology, standards and products, French and German or Spanish terminology, and component combinations. Eight retained sources span multiple independent official, product, and research publishers.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Before building a classifier, obtain a fixed sample of 10–20 versioned pre-deployment decision templates and verifier outputs from one consenting venue, firm, or smart-contract assessor. Blind-code whether each declares program/path scope, assumptions, timeout, unknown, unsupported features, and human assistance. Proceed to an expiring offline pilot only if this audit confirms Boolean conflation or unsupported universal language; use independent proof labels, no live capital or admission decisions, and subgroup analysis of developer exclusions.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded search found established theory and tools for undecidability boundaries, decidable subclasses, scoped liquidity verification, sound incomplete analysis, and explicit timeout or unknown states, plus established financial algorithm testing and governance. It did not find the entire proposed supervisor-or-venue solvency-boundary workflow in one source. That absence is not evidence of world novelty and makes no claim about patents, freedom to operate, market size, or impact."}