{"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__B","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["automated theorem proving timeout must not be treated as false unknown result status","computational philosophy automated theorem prover consistency entailment platform","computational philosophy platform theory consistency entailment Prover9 web interface","formal philosophy automated theorem prover timeout unknown countermodel interface"],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S6"],"no_result_note":"The search found philosophy-facing proof systems and standard mechanisms for separating successful, inconclusive, and resource-limited outcomes, but no direct public evidence that a named philosophy platform currently converts timeouts into rejection or editorial decisions."},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["SMT-LIB standard check-sat unknown reason timeout","TPTP SZS ontology theorem countersatisfiable timeout unknown statuses","site:isabelle.in.tum.de sledgehammer timeout proof replay manual","computational metaphysics proof countermodel unknown timeout"],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S2"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["Entscheidungsproblem first order logic undecidable semi-decision procedure theorem proving history","site:plato.stanford.edu Church theorem undecidability first order logic Entscheidungsproblem","site:fr \"démonstration automatique\" indécidable logique premier ordre semi-décidable"],"source_ids":["S7","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["site:smt-lib.org language standard version 2.7 PDF check-sat unknown","site:tptp.org SZS ontology status Timeout GaveUp CounterSatisfiable official","site:isabelle.in.tum.de sledgehammer timeout proof replay manual","philosophical logic model finder theorem prover web application consistency"],"source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5","S6"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["site:fr \"démonstration automatique\" indécidable logique premier ordre semi-décidable","site:de Entscheidungsproblem Prädikatenlogik unentscheidbar Universität","site:es \"demostradores automáticos\" tiempo límite desconocido satisfacibilidad"],"source_ids":["S7"],"no_result_note":"The retained French university source directly covered undecidability, semidecision, nontermination, and the inability to conclude after bounded search; German and Spanish searches added no stronger retained source."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["machine enforce logic fragment reject out of scope solver profile standard","OWL 2 profiles decidability tractable reasoning official recommendation","formal philosophy automated reasoning Prover9 Mace4 consistency entailment journal","site:isabelle.in.tum.de sledgehammer timeout proof replay manual"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Oak: A proof checker focused on simplicity, readability, and ease of use","url":"https://oakproof.org/","publisher":"Oak","date_or_year":"n.d. (accessed 2026-08-04)","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["A functioning proof-checking interface explicitly accepts statements in philosophy and translates proof steps into first-order logic for an external prover.","The product stops and reports a problem when the prover exceeds a work bound instead of claiming that the submitted conclusion is false.","A philosophy-facing adopter class and platform-operator role exist, although Oak does not provide the proposed four-state policy."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Steps Toward a Computational Metaphysics","url":"https://fitelson.org/cm.pdf","publisher":"Journal of Philosophical Logic / Springer","date_or_year":"2007","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Fitelson and Zalta implemented formal metaphysical theories in Prover9, establishing an actual computational-philosophy use case.","Their translation from second-order modal object theory to Prover9's first-order language required explicit representational compromises and could not fully capture comprehension schemata.","They paired proof search with Mace model finding, used models to check premise consistency, and found a countermodel to a previously alleged philosophical theorem.","Failure of Prover9 to find a proof prompted countermodel search rather than immediate classification as false."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"The SMT-LIB Standard, Version 2.7","url":"https://smt-lib.org/papers/smt-lib-reference-v2.7-r2025-07-07.pdf","publisher":"SMT-LIB Initiative","date_or_year":"2025-07-07","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The standard requires check-sat responses to distinguish sat, unsat, and unknown.","Unknown means the search was inconclusive because of resource limits, incompleteness, or another reason, rather than unsatisfiable.","The language supports declaring a current logic with set-logic and querying a reason for unknown, directly implementing scope and abstention mechanisms."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"SZS Ontology","url":"https://tptp.org/UserDocs/SZSOntology/","publisher":"TPTP World","date_or_year":"n.d. (accessed 2026-08-04)","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The commonly used SZS result ontology separates theorem, counter-satisfiable, satisfiable, and unsatisfiable successes from timeout, gave-up/incompleteness, and error outcomes.","It standardizes parseable result records and separately delimited proof or model evidence.","This is a close, routinely used analogue of the proposal's result-state lattice and prohibition on converting timeout into a semantic verdict."]},{"source_id":"S5","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":"2012-12-11","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["OWL profiles are restricted fragments or sublanguages that trade expressiveness for efficient reasoning.","The recommendation defines profiles through grammatical and global syntactic restrictions, providing a concrete analogue for machine-enforced scope boundaries.","For specified profiles, ontology-consistency, satisfiability, subsumption, instance-checking, or query-answering tasks receive documented complexity guarantees."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Sledgehammer: A User's Guide","url":"https://isabelle.in.tum.de/website-Isabelle2013/dist/Isabelle2013/doc/sledgehammer.pdf","publisher":"Isabelle Project / Technische Universität München","date_or_year":"2013","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Sledgehammer distinguishes found-proof, no-proof-found, timeout, and unknown outcomes and exposes configurable search limits.","It documents sound and unsound encodings and a strict mode, showing that translation assumptions and guarantee profiles are operational concerns.","It supports proof replay, reconstruction, or certificates, closely paralleling the proposal's proof-witness and independent-checking requirements."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Base de la démonstration automatique","url":"https://www-verimag.imag.fr/~wack/cours_inf242/node9.html","publisher":"VERIMAG / Université Grenoble Alpes","date_or_year":"2011–2012","source_type":"OTHER","language":"French","claims_supported":["The French-language source states that first-order validity is undecidable and semidecidable.","It explains that termination is not guaranteed for invalid formulas and that stopping an unfinished enumeration permits no conclusion.","It supplies independent regional terminology and directly supports the distinction between one-sided recognition and total decision."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Alonzo Church","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2026/entries/church/","publisher":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University","date_or_year":"2026","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Church's 1936 result implied a negative solution to the Entscheidungsproblem: there is no decision procedure for unrestricted first-order logic.","The source establishes the older terminology and historical basis of the proposed computability-boundary analysis."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The core technical problem is real: unrestricted first-order validity and related consequence tasks lack a total decision procedure, while deployed standards and products explicitly encounter inconclusive, incomplete, timeout, and unknown states. Computational metaphysics and Oak show that philosophy-facing formal reasoning is not merely hypothetical. However, no retained source documents the proposal's stronger operational premise that a named philosophy platform demands universal Boolean answers or reports timeout as rejection.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"],"uncertainty":"The exact boundary depends on the platform's admitted language, semantics, and promises. A machine-enforced decidable fragment or a finite bounded workload would falsify the alleged unrestricted problem for that platform."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Named computational-metaphysics researchers and the operator of a philosophy-capable proof checker demonstrate identifiable practitioner and platform-operator classes. They could evaluate scoped result policies. No source identifies an existing editorial board, institution, or product owner committed to authorizing the proposed 60-case pilot or using solver output for publication decisions.","source_ids":["S1","S2"],"uncertainty":"The adopter class is concrete, but the proposal does not name a specific platform owner or authorizer whose workflow currently exhibits the alleged failure."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The main technical mechanisms already operate in mature practice: SMT-LIB and SZS separate semantic answers from unknown, timeout, incompleteness, and error; Isabelle distinguishes search outcomes and supports sound encodings and proof reconstruction; W3C profiles enforce restricted fragments; computational metaphysics pairs proofs with model finding. The proposed integration and governance record are feasible, though its philosophy-specific pilot effect remains untested.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"],"uncertainty":"No retained source validates the full integrated policy, fragment classifier, appeal process, or proposed pilot dataset as one deployed philosophy platform."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"TPTP SZS status and evidence ontology","source_ids":["S4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It standardizes theorem, counter-satisfiable, satisfiable, unsatisfiable, timeout, gave-up/incomplete, and error states and associates successful claims with proof or model data.","remaining_difference":"It is a general automated-reasoning interchange practice, not a philosophy-specific editorial governance workflow with appeals and recheck triggers."},{"name":"SMT-LIB scoped logic and three-valued check-sat protocol","source_ids":["S3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It fixes a declared logic, separates sat, unsat, and unknown, and records reasons for inconclusive searches instead of treating them as negative semantic answers.","remaining_difference":"It does not itself choose admissible philosophical encodings, authorize editorial use, or define human review."},{"name":"Isabelle Sledgehammer outcome, encoding, and proof-reconstruction practice","source_ids":["S6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It separates proof found, no proof found, timeout, and unknown; documents encoding soundness; and supports replay or certificates.","remaining_difference":"It is an interactive theorem-proving workflow rather than the proposed public adjudication platform and four-state editorial interface."},{"name":"OWL 2 Profiles","source_ids":["S5"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It defines enforceable syntactic fragments with separately stated reasoning and complexity properties, closely matching the proposed decidable-subclass map and scope boundary.","remaining_difference":"It concerns ontology languages and efficiency-oriented profiles rather than arbitrary philosophical theory–thesis submissions or impossibility certificates."},{"name":"Computational-metaphysics Prover9/Mace workflow","source_ids":["S2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"It translates philosophical theories into a prover, checks consistency with models, obtains proofs, and seeks countermodels when proof search fails.","remaining_difference":"It does not publish a general result-state contract, machine-enforced fragment map, or explicit timeout/unknown governance policy."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"A credible incremental claim remains only at the domain-workflow level: for an identified philosophy-facing platform that presently collapses or ambiguously presents unsuccessful searches, binding existing SZS/SMT-style outcome states to an enforceable fragment gate and reviewed editorial policy will reduce timeout-as-false classifications and improve independent reproducibility relative to that platform's current interface. This is an implementation-effect claim, not a new computability or theorem-prover mechanism.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"Falsify the incremental claim if an audit shows the target platform already separates proof, countermodel, unknown, timeout, and out-of-scope states with enforced logic scopes, or if a preregistered comparison shows no reduction in false/timeout collapse, no reproducible fragment classification, or unacceptable reviewer disagreement.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"The bounded search used eight retained public sources across six lanes. It did not inspect proprietary platform logs, unpublished workflows, patents, every theorem prover, or every language region. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, routine use outside the documented solver ecosystems, or realized impact."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Undecidability and semidecision establish the unrestricted technical problem, while deployed standards and products confirm that unknown, timeout, incompleteness, and scoped-logics states occur operationally. The platform-specific timeout-to-rejection baseline remains unverified but is testable.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"Philosophy-facing tool operators and named computational-metaphysics practitioners are identifiable, but no specific platform owner, editorial board, or institution is shown to possess the proposed workflow or to authorize the pilot.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although the underlying mechanism is established practice, a bounded contextual claim remains: applying enforced scope plus distinct result states to an actual philosophy-platform workflow should reduce timeout-as-false errors and increase reproducibility.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"One platform can preregister 60 non-public theory–thesis cases, preserve current outputs, independently classify fragment membership, and compare the existing interface with proof/countermodel/unknown/out-of-scope reporting without making editorial decisions.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A research-only, non-public comparison with no automatic rejection, explicit halt conditions, retained traces, and authorization by the platform owner poses no evident unresolved safety stop. Editorial deployment would require separate authorization and validation.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S6"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially. The eight retained sources span seven publisher or project contexts and include primary research, official standards, and first-party products, with every retained source opened directly.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Identify one actual philosophy-facing platform and authorizer, then preregister a non-public 60-case audit comparing its current outputs with an SZS/SMT-derived proof, countermodel, unknown, timeout, and out-of-scope policy. Require conservative fragment validation and independent replay or review; stop before the pilot if the existing system already implements the package or if no timeout-as-false baseline is found.","world_novelty_boundary":"The search supports neither world novelty nor a new computability result. Outcome abstention, scoped logics, restricted fragments, proof/model evidence, and timeout separation are established automated-reasoning practices. At most, the proposal retains a context-specific empirical claim about integrating those practices into a particular philosophy-platform editorial workflow; patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not assessed."}