{"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":["computational philosophy platform theorem prover consistency entailment timeout unknown","formal philosophy automated theorem proving consistency theory platform","computational metaphysics automated theorem prover philosophy consistency entailment"],"source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["automated theorem prover timeout must not mean false unknown result status","site:smt-lib.org standard unknown timeout result sat unsat unknown","site:tptp.org SZS ontology Timeout GaveUp Unknown status","site:w3.org OWL 2 profiles decidable reasoning specification"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["Entscheidungsproblem undecidable first order logic consistency entailment Church Turing","Alonzo Church A note on the Entscheidungsproblem 1936 PDF","Unentscheidbarkeit Prädikatenlogik Semi-Entscheidungsverfahren deutsch Universität"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["site:smt-lib.org standard unknown timeout result sat unsat unknown","site:tptp.org SZS ontology Timeout GaveUp Unknown status","formal philosophy theorem prover automated reasoning philosophical theories consistency","computational philosophy proof assistant unknown timeout countermodel"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["deutsch automatisches Beweisen Timeout unbekannt Entscheidungsproblem Logik","Unentscheidbarkeit Prädikatenlogik Semi-Entscheidungsverfahren deutsch Universität","site:de Entscheidungsproblem Prädikatenlogik unentscheidbar"],"source_ids":["SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["decidable fragments first-order logic machine enforced syntax unknown timeout countermodel","OWL profiles syntactic restrictions decidability consistency entailment","SMT solver proof model unknown reason timeout interface","automated reasoning philosophical theories representation higher order logic"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC7","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":"The Journal of Symbolic Logic / Association for Symbolic Logic","date_or_year":"1936","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Church proves that the general Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable for sufficiently expressive symbolic logic.","The impossibility concerns a correct general decision procedure, not merely the performance of a particular prover."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","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":["A mature standard restricts an accepted language into syntactically defined profiles to obtain stated reasoning guarantees.","The standard explicitly maps consistency, satisfiability, subsumption, instance checking, and query answering to decidability and complexity classifications.","It distinguishes decidable, undecidable, and decidability-open reasoning problems."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"The SMT-LIB Standard, Version 2.7","url":"https://smt-lib.org/papers/smt-lib-reference-v2.7-r2025-04-09.pdf","publisher":"SMT-LIB Initiative","date_or_year":"2025-04-09","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The standard check-sat response vocabulary is sat, unsat, or unknown rather than a forced Boolean.","After unknown, a solver can report a reason such as memory exhaustion or incompleteness.","A standardized solver interface therefore already implements explicit abstention and traceable failure reasons."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"SZS Ontology","url":"https://tptp.org/UserDocs/SZSOntology/","publisher":"TPTP World","date_or_year":"Living specification, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Automated-theorem-proving practice distinguishes semantic success from no-success states.","The ontology separately represents theorem, counter-satisfiable, satisfiable, unsatisfiable, timeout, resource exhaustion, incompleteness, inappropriate input, error, and unverified output.","Timeout and incompleteness are not represented as falsehood or refutation."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Computer Science and Metaphysics: A Cross-Fertilization","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.00787","publisher":"Open Philosophy / arXiv","date_or_year":"2019","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Researchers already apply first- and higher-order theorem provers to philosophical theories and arguments.","The work reports proof discovery, error detection, consistency-sensitive embeddings, and computational assessment of metaphysical theories.","It emphasizes representation compromises, target-logic soundness, abstraction layers, and the need to match reasoning infrastructure to the philosophical theory."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Oak","url":"https://oakproof.org/","publisher":"Oak","date_or_year":"Undated, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["An operating proof checker explicitly accepts statements from philosophy and theology as well as mathematics.","Oak translates proof steps to first-order logic and delegates validity checking to the E prover.","Its public description combines an invalid step and exhaustion of an amount-of-work limit into the same generic report that there was a problem, demonstrating the proposed ambiguity in a philosophy-capable product."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Automated Reasoning","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-automated/","publisher":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","date_or_year":"2001; substantive revision 2024","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Automated-reasoning design requires specification of the problem class, representation language, calculus, and computation method.","Higher-order unification is undecidable, and richer logics create additional automation limits.","The article documents theorem provers and model finders used on philosophical logic, including Gödel's ontological argument."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Entscheidbarkeit von Nichtstandard-Klassen der Prädikatenlogik","url":"https://www.thi.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/thi/abschlussarbeiten/2021/Entscheidbarkeit_von_Nichtstandard_Klassen_der_Praedikatenlogik.pdf","publisher":"Leibniz Universität Hannover","date_or_year":"2021","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"German","claims_supported":["German-language literature frames the historical Entscheidungsproblem as deciding satisfiability or validity for arbitrary first-order formulas.","It states that Church and Turing ruled out such a general decision algorithm.","It explicitly reframes the aftermath as a classification problem: determine which restrictions yield decidable formula classes, and studies several such classes."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The core computability problem is real: sufficiently expressive first-order and higher-order reasoning tasks cannot support an unrestricted correct terminating decision procedure. A philosophy-capable proof product also publicly merges invalidity and resource exhaustion into one generic problem report. However, no retained source establishes the stronger empirical baseline that editors or institutions routinely convert timeouts into rejection or falsehood, and the problem disappears if a platform machine-enforces only an independently verified decidable input class.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The platform in the proposal is hypothetical, its exact admitted logic is unspecified, and the prevalence or consequences of timeout-to-false collapse in editorial philosophy workflows were not quantified."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Identifiable adopters exist: operators of philosophy-capable proof systems such as Oak, computational-metaphysics research teams using Isabelle/HOL and automated provers, and maintainers of solver-facing platforms. These actors control accepted languages, result vocabularies, resource policies, and user-facing claims; an accountable platform board could therefore authorize the proposed pilot.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"uncertainty":"The retained sources identify actual technical operators and researchers but do not identify a specific journal or editorial board currently seeking this intervention."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The main mechanisms are already implementable and standardized: syntactically enforceable fragments with documented decision properties, non-Boolean unknown responses with reasons, and separate timeout, incompleteness, error, proof, and model statuses. Philosophy-focused work also demonstrates formal embeddings, proof discovery, model finding, and consistency analysis. Independent review and appeal governance are plausible additions but were not directly evaluated by the retained sources.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5"],"uncertainty":"The evidence establishes technical feasibility, not that a four-state interface plus independent review improves decisions in the proposed 60-case philosophy pilot."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"SMT-LIB sat/unsat/unknown protocol","source_ids":["SRC3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It refuses forced Boolean completion, standardizes unknown, and permits a machine-readable reason for non-resolution.","remaining_difference":"It does not provide philosophy-specific scope governance, an out-of-scope state, independent logical review, or editorial safeguards."},{"name":"TPTP SZS status and dataform ontologies","source_ids":["SRC4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It separates established theorem/model outcomes from timeout, resource exhaustion, incompleteness, inappropriate input, error, and unverified output, closely matching the proposed status lattice and trace policy.","remaining_difference":"It is a general automated-theorem-proving reporting standard rather than a governed philosophy-adjudication workflow, and it does not itself enforce decidable fragments."},{"name":"OWL 2 profiles and computational-properties map","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It machine-specifies restricted sublanguages and publishes reasoning-task-specific decidability and complexity guarantees, matching the proposed scope boundary and decidable-subclass map.","remaining_difference":"It concerns ontology reasoning rather than arbitrary philosophical theories and does not supply the proposed review, appeal, or timeout-interface policy."},{"name":"Oak philosophy-capable proof checker","source_ids":["SRC6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"It is a user-facing system for checking proofs in philosophy and other domains through a first-order prover under an amount-of-work bound.","remaining_difference":"Its public description groups invalidity and work-limit exhaustion into a generic problem outcome, so it exemplifies the baseline ambiguity rather than the proposed explicit abstention mechanism."},{"name":"Computational metaphysics using theorem provers and formal embeddings","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC7"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It applies proof search, model finding, representation contracts, sound embeddings, and consistency analysis to philosophical theories while recognizing logic-dependent representational limits.","remaining_difference":"The work is researcher-mediated and does not present a universal public adjudicator, standardized four-state interface, preregistered comparison, or editorial decision policy."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"Although fragment scoping and explicit non-success states are established automated-reasoning practice, a credible domain-specific incremental claim remains: for a philosophy-facing workflow currently using a generic Boolean/problem interface, machine-enforced scope plus distinct proof, countermodel, unknown, and out-of-scope outputs will reduce timeout-to-negative classifications and improve independently reproducible classifications without rejecting any known-valid proof.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The incremental claim is falsified if a preregistered comparison shows no baseline timeout-to-negative collapses, no reduction in such collapses, any known-valid proof becomes rejected, fragment membership cannot be conservatively enforced, or independent reviewers cannot reproduce the state assignments. It is also moot if every admitted input already belongs to an independently verified decidable class and the existing interface preserves all non-success distinctions.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"The bounded search used exactly eight retained direct sources and covered foundational results, standards, products, philosophy applications, German terminology, and component combinations. It did not inspect proprietary platform behavior, conduct interviews, measure prevalence, exhaust every logic or regional vocabulary, or establish patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact, or world novelty."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Foundational and contemporary sources establish that unrestricted decision guarantees fail for sufficiently expressive logics, while Oak provides a direct philosophy-capable example in which invalidity and work exhaustion receive the same generic report. The empirical prevalence of editorial misuse remains unestablished but is not required to test the bounded interface claim.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Actual philosophy-oriented prover operators and computational-metaphysics teams are identifiable and control the relevant language, solver, and interface choices; the proposed accountable board is a coherent authorizer for a non-public pilot.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The general mechanism is established practice, but its effect in a philosophy-facing workflow remains distinctly testable as a reduction in timeout-to-negative collapse and an increase in reproducible state classifications under enforced scope and review.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A non-public 60-pair A/B comparison is finite and measurable. It can record baseline outputs, four-state outputs, fragment-membership decisions, known-valid-proof errors, timeout collapses, and blinded reviewer agreement without making editorial decisions.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC6"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The authorized pilot is reversible, excludes automatic rejection and public labeling, preserves appeal and independent review, and has explicit halt conditions. No retained source identifies a safety or legal prohibition on such offline interface evaluation.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially. The eight retained sources span eight hosting or publishing organizations, include primary research, official standards, first-party product evidence, historical terminology, German-language evidence, and direct component-level analogues.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Run the authorized preregistered 60-pair, non-public comparison. Before execution, publish a machine-checkable grammar for each candidate fragment, predefine proof/countermodel/unknown/out-of-scope rules, preserve raw solver traces and reasons, blind two independent logicians to interface condition, and score timeout-to-negative collapses, false rejections of known-valid proofs, conservative fragment-membership errors, and inter-reviewer reproducibility. Halt under the supplied rollback criteria.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web search supports only a contrastive prior-art assessment. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact, or the absence of additional prior art."}