{"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__philosophy","opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__A","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["philosophical argument platform formal logic entailment automatic evaluation unknown timeout","computational argumentation platform formal argument evaluation undecidable unknown status","argument mapping software automatic validity checking philosophical arguments OVA Carneades"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":"The search confirmed the underlying undecidability boundary and found real philosophical-argument platforms, but found no public evidence that a platform currently promises terminating binary entailment decisions for every input in an unrestricted language."},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["SMT-LIB standard unknown response solver reason-unknown","TPTP SZS ontology Timeout GaveUp Theorem CounterSatisfiable","OWL 2 profiles decidable fragments official recommendation reasoner entailment","formal argumentation undecided labeling platform proof certificate"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["unrestricted first order logic entailment undecidable Church theorem decision problem source","Alonzo Church 1936 unsolvable problem elementary number theory PDF original","A note on the Entscheidungsproblem Church 1936 PDF"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["SMT-LIB standard unknown response solver reason-unknown","TPTP SZS ontology Timeout GaveUp Theorem CounterSatisfiable","OWL 2 profiles decidable fragments official recommendation reasoner entailment","argument mapping software automatic validity checking philosophical arguments OVA Carneades"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["Entscheidungsproblem Unentscheidbarkeit Prädikatenlogik automatische Beweiser unbekannt Zeitüberschreitung","problème de la décision logique du premier ordre indécidable démonstrateur automatique inconnu","判定問題 一階述語論理 決定不能 自動定理証明 unknown","problema de decisión lógica de primer orden indecidible demostrador automático desconocido"],"source_ids":["SRC7"],"no_result_note":"Spanish, French, German, and Japanese terminology was searched. The retained Spanish scholarly record directly distinguishes decidable and undecidable first-order fragments; no regional source revealed the proposed philosophical-platform package in routine use."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["decidable fragment unknown theorem prover certificate","entailment service supported profile unsupported syntax unknown result","argument platform formalization ambiguity entailment philosophical truth distinction","formal argumentation undecided labeling platform proof certificate"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"A Note on the Entscheidungsproblem","url":"https://courses.fit.cvut.cz/NI-VYC/church-a-note-on-the-entscheidungsproblem.pdf","publisher":"Association for Symbolic Logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic","date_or_year":"1936","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["The general Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable for sufficiently expressive symbolic systems.","The impossibility issue predates modern theorem-proving products and is not evidence of a newly discovered computability boundary."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"The SMT-LIB Standard, Version 2.5, Draft 2","url":"https://smt-lib.org/papers/smt-lib-reference-v2.5-draft-2.pdf","publisher":"SMT-LIB Initiative","date_or_year":"2015","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The standard permits a solver to answer unknown rather than falsely returning sat or unsat.","The reason-unknown facility can report incompleteness or resource exhaustion.","Logic declarations and command restrictions provide an established representation and scope contract."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"SZS Ontology","url":"https://tptp.org/UserDocs/SZSOntology/","publisher":"TPTP World","date_or_year":"Current documentation, accessed 2026","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Automated-theorem-proving practice distinguishes semantic successes from Timeout, GaveUp, and Error.","Proofs and models can accompany qualified result statuses.","Machine-readable guarantee and failure labels are established practice in automated reasoning."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles (Second Edition)","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)","date_or_year":"2012","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Official profiles enforce syntactic restrictions that trade expressiveness for tractable or otherwise characterized reasoning.","The specification separately reports decidability and computational-complexity properties.","Mechanically specified language fragments are established prior art for bounded reasoning guarantees."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"OVA","url":"https://www.arg.tech/index.php/ova/","publisher":"ARG-tech","date_or_year":"2022","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["OVA3 is an identifiable, maintained philosophical-argument analysis platform.","The platform has a substantial user population and machine-readable AIF representations.","Its public description emphasizes visualization, annotation, mining, grading, and analytics, not universal binary formal-entailment adjudication."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"A Labelling Approach for Ideal and Stage Semantics","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/19462166.2010.515036","publisher":"Argument & Computation / SAGE","date_or_year":"2011","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Formal argumentation has long used in, out, and undec labels.","Undecided expressly represents abstention from accepting or rejecting an argument.","This is close status-label prior art, although semantic undecidedness is not identical to incomplete proof search or nontermination."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Fragmentos decidibles e indecidibles en la Lógica de primer orden","url":"https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6255411","publisher":"Dialnet, Universidad de La Rioja","date_or_year":"1969","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"Spanish","claims_supported":["Spanish-language scholarship explicitly distinguishes decidable and undecidable fragments of first-order logic.","It describes decidable syntactic forms while relating them to Church's general undecidability result.","Fragment mapping is established internationally rather than confined to recent English terminology."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Logical Consequence","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/logical-consequence/index.html","publisher":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","date_or_year":"2019 revision","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Logical consequence can be explicated through model-theoretic or proof-theoretic approaches.","An argument's validity does not establish that its premises or conclusion are philosophically true.","Choice of logic, vocabulary, semantics, and formalization affects what consequence relation is evaluated."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The computability premise is well supported: unrestricted first-order-style entailment does not admit a total decision procedure, and operational standards explicitly distinguish successful answers from unknown, timeout, incompleteness, and errors. Real philosophical-argument platforms also exist. However, no retained source shows an actual platform admitting an unrestricted expressive language while requiring a terminating ENTAILED/NOT_ENTAILED verdict for every argument. The concrete forced-binary platform problem therefore remains conditional rather than externally demonstrated.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC5"],"uncertainty":"The actual platform grammar, semantics, output contract, timeout handling, and prevalence of forced negative verdicts were not publicly documented. The strongest counterexplanation is that any intended platform already uses a finite or decidable representation, or that its main failures arise during natural-language formalization."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"ARG-tech's OVA3 provides an identifiable platform operator, maintained product, machine-readable argument representation, and user population that could host or authorize a shadow evaluation. The public material does not show that ARG-tech seeks automated universal entailment verdicts, operates the hypothesized evaluator, or would authorize the intervention.","source_ids":["SRC5"],"uncertainty":"Operator identity is externally visible, but adoption intent, decision authority over formal-logic guarantees, access to archived cases, and availability of an independent logic reviewer are unverified."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Most technical mechanisms are established separately: computability impossibility results, restricted decidable profiles, explicit unknown and failure statuses, proof/model artifacts, and non-binary argument labels. The retained evidence does not show their proposed integration as a guarantee-labelled router for philosophical arguments, nor evidence that such a router preserves useful philosophical coverage.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The crucial unresolved implementation issues are faithful formalization, correct fragment recognition, sound certificate checking across selected logics, user comprehension of guarantee labels, and coverage of philosophically important arguments."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"SMT-LIB unknown and reason-unknown protocol","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses declared logics and an explicit unknown result, including incompleteness and resource-related reasons, instead of fabricating a binary answer.","remaining_difference":"It is a satisfiability-solver interface standard, not a philosophical-argument platform, and does not supply the proposed governance record, domain formalization review, or philosophical-truth warning."},{"name":"TPTP SZS success and no-success ontologies","source_ids":["SRC3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Separates theorem or countermodel results from Timeout, GaveUp, and Error and associates results with proof or model artifacts.","remaining_difference":"It standardizes automated-reasoning outputs but does not route natural-language philosophical arguments through reviewed formalizations and mechanically enforced decidable fragments."},{"name":"OWL 2 language profiles","source_ids":["SRC4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Restricts an expressive knowledge-representation language to syntactically recognizable profiles with characterized reasoning properties.","remaining_difference":"It primarily addresses ontology reasoning and efficiency; it is not an end-to-end fallback router with certificate-backed YES, bounded countermodels, and UNKNOWN for philosophical entailment queries."},{"name":"Three-valued formal-argumentation labelling","source_ids":["SRC6"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Refuses to collapse all argument statuses into accepted or rejected and retains an explicit undecided label.","remaining_difference":"Its undec label is defined by argumentation semantics, not by failed or bounded computation, unsupported syntax, or lack of a proof certificate."},{"name":"Church's negative solution to the Entscheidungsproblem","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC7"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Establishes the foundational boundary motivating rejection of a universal terminating decision guarantee and supports mapping decidable fragments.","remaining_difference":"It proves an impossibility result but does not provide an operational platform router, status vocabulary, review process, or empirical deployment test."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a real philosophical-argument platform whose admitted formal language is demonstrably not totally decidable, a mechanically enforced router combining proved decidable fragments, certificate-backed positive results, bounded countermodel results, and explicit UNKNOWN labels will reduce forced binary errors relative to current time-limited adjudication while retaining prespecified usable coverage and without users confusing formal entailment with philosophical truth.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if the target language is already an enforceable decidable fragment; if no forced binary errors occur at baseline; or if a preregistered shadow test finds any unsound definitive verdict, no reduction in forced binary errors, inadequate coverage, or systematic interpretation of UNKNOWN as rejection.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"This bounded public-web search covered six adversarial lanes and opened all eight retained sources. It did not inspect private platform code, logs, contracts, archived arguments, user research, patents, procurement records, or unpublished systems. Search-engine indexing and language coverage are incomplete, and no conclusion about world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact follows."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"Undecidability and the need for non-binary solver statuses are externally established, but the defining empirical allegation—an actual philosophical platform combining unrestricted admission with mandatory terminating binary verdicts—was not found.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC5"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"ARG-tech is an identifiable operator of OVA3, a maintained argument platform with machine-readable representations and users; its maintainers are a bounded candidate authorizer for a read-only pilot, although willingness is unknown.","source_ids":["SRC5"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Despite strong adjacent prior art, a distinct domain-transfer claim remains: measure whether the combined guarantee router reduces forced binary errors on philosophical arguments while preserving coverage and user comprehension.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A preregistered, read-only shadow evaluation on 120 archived arguments can compare baseline and routed outputs, audit every definitive certificate, measure coverage, and test label comprehension without publishing verdicts.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"No source reveals a categorical safety or authority prohibition. The step can remain advisory and read-only, with formal entailment separated from truth and with immediate halt on an unsound certificate or coerced UNKNOWN. Operator authorization and independent logic review must precede access but are ordinary prerequisites, not an unresolved stop.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The bounded search covered the direct problem, closest prior art, historical terminology, products and standards, non-English terminology, and component combinations, using exactly eight opened sources from multiple independent publishers and six primary, official, standards, or first-party sources.","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 the router, obtain operator-confirmed documentation of one target platform's admitted grammar, semantics, guarantee language, and current handling of timeout, failed search, malformed syntax, and unsupported inputs. If that audit verifies the hypothesized forced-binary problem, preregister and run the authorized read-only 120-argument shadow test, with independent checking of every definitive result and separate measurement of coverage and user interpretation.","world_novelty_boundary":"The search found longstanding and standardized versions of nearly every technical component, but no retained source showed their complete deployment as a guarantee-labelled entailment router for philosophical-argument platforms. That supports only a bounded adjacent-prior-art finding and a testable domain-transfer distinction; it does not establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or impact."}