{"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__C","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["philosophy research platform automated decide whether claim follows theory formal logic","computational philosophy automated theorem proving philosophical theories consequence","argument mapping platform philosophy automatic evaluation claims logic","universal philosophical theory consequence decision platform timeout false"],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"],"no_result_note":"No retained source identified a philosophy research platform that promises exact, terminating yes/no consequence judgments for every submitted theory-and-claim pair or converts timeouts into false. Located philosophy applications are scoped proof checking, argument reconstruction, or case-specific theorem proving."},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["formal philosophy platform theorem prover claim follows theory project","computational philosophy theorem prover formalization semantic faithfulness limitations","first order logic validity undecidable semi-decidable official encyclopedia","formalizing philosophy theorem prover proof checking historians philosophy study"],"source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["Stanford Encyclopedia decision problem Church theorem Entscheidungsproblem validity undecidable","Alonzo Church 1936 unsolvable problem elementary number theory PDF","Turing 1936 Entscheidungsproblem PDF proceedings London Mathematical Society","Entscheidungsproblem philosophy automated consequence decision procedure"],"source_ids":["S6","S7"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["W3C OWL 2 profiles decidability reasoning official recommendation","SMT-LIB standard unknown timeout response solver","site:microsoft.github.io/z3guide unknown incomplete timeout check-sat","philosophy proof checker automated theorem prover product"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["Entscheidbarkeit philosophische Logik automatische Theorembeweiser unbekannt Zeitüberschreitung","décidabilité logique philosophique démonstration automatique théorème conséquence","decidibilidad lógica filosófica demostración automática teoremas plataforma","décidabilité semi-décidable calcul des prédicats philosophie"],"source_ids":["S7"],"no_result_note":"French, German, and Spanish terminology was searched. The retained French philosophy reference independently confirms model-relative decidability and one-sided semidecision; no regional philosophy platform matching the hypothesized universal service was found."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["decidable logic fragments unknown timeout theorem prover formalization fidelity","formal philosophy theorem prover semantic formalization limitations primary research","bounded proof search unknown expert review formalization philosophy","logic standard restricted fragment consequence status unknown"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Computational Philosophy","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-philosophy/","publisher":"Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University","date_or_year":"2023","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Automated theorem provers are used on particular formalized philosophical positions and arguments, including metaphysics, ethics, and ontological arguments.","The documented applications begin from selected axioms and formal logics rather than a universal natural-language philosophy adjudication service.","Computational analysis has exposed inconsistencies and consequences within specific encodings."]},{"source_id":"S2","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":["Oak accepts proofs concerning mathematics, philosophy, or theology and checks their formal steps.","Oak explicitly does not write proofs or decide arbitrary claims from scratch.","When its external first-order prover cannot validate a step or exceeds a work bound, Oak stops and reports a problem rather than documenting a universal terminating consequence guarantee."]},{"source_id":"S3","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":["OWL profiles are syntactically restricted fragments that trade expressive power for reasoning guarantees and efficiency.","The recommendation maps particular languages and reasoning tasks to decidability and complexity classifications.","Its taxonomy distinguishes undecidable, decidable with open complexity, and decidability-open cases, closely paralleling boundary and fragment mapping."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"The SMT-LIB Standard, Version 2.7","url":"https://smt-lib.org/papers/smt-lib-reference-v2.7-r2025-02-05.pdf","publisher":"SMT-LIB Initiative","date_or_year":"2025","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The standard requires a distinct unknown response when search is inconclusive because of resource limits, solver incompleteness, or other causes.","Unknown is not equivalent to unsatisfiable, directly supporting separation of failed search from a negative semantic verdict.","Solver responses are interpreted relative to a declared logic, current context, and assumptions."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Computer Verification for Historians of Philosophy","url":"https://philpapers.org/archive/ELKCVF.pdf","publisher":"Synthese / Springer Nature","date_or_year":"2022","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Interactive theorem provers have been applied to philosophical argument reconstruction and can help expose assumptions and verify derivations.","The author treats them as complements to interpretation and critical thought, not replacements that perform philosophy universally.","Formalization may distort a philosopher's argument, so encoding fidelity and explicit assumptions require substantive human review.","Historians of philosophy and formal-method practitioners are identifiable potential adopters, but the paper does not identify the hypothesized platform or its authorizing board."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"The Church-Turing Thesis","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/church-turing/","publisher":"Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University","date_or_year":"2024 archive edition","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["The historical Entscheidungsproblem asked for a procedure that correctly decides provability for every formula and always finishes.","Church and Turing established that no such decision procedure exists for full first-order predicate logic.","Decidable fragments such as propositional and monadic predicate logic were known, establishing the older problem-fragment terminology behind the proposal."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Décidabilité","url":"https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/philosophie/d%C3%A9cidabilit%C3%A9/191437","publisher":"Éditions Larousse","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OTHER","language":"French","claims_supported":["Decidability is relative to a theory rather than an intrinsic property of an isolated formula.","A decision procedure must give a result mechanically in finitely many steps.","Semidecidable properties admit a positive verdict for members but may give no answer otherwise; predicate-calculus theoremhood is given as an example."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Tactics | Online Z3 Guide","url":"https://microsoft.github.io/z3guide/docs/strategies/tactics/","publisher":"Microsoft","date_or_year":"2026","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Z3 provides bounded tactics such as try-for and returns unknown when a tactic establishes neither satisfiability nor unsatisfiability.","The guide explicitly limits completeness of an illustrated integer solver to variables with lower and upper bounds.","This is a deployed example of bounded search, restricted solvable regions, and honest non-Boolean fallback behavior."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"NOT_SUPPORTED","finding":"The general computability hazard is real, but the proposal's concrete problem hypothesis is not externally established. The retained philosophy sources document scoped formalizations, proof checking, and argument reconstruction; Oak explicitly checks user-supplied proofs and stops on excessive work. No source documents an actual philosophy research platform promising universal exact terminating verdicts or coercing timeout and unresolved search to false.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S6"],"uncertainty":"Absence from a bounded public-web search cannot prove that no private, planned, or poorly indexed platform has this behavior. The claim could become supported by product documentation, interface captures, logs, or stakeholder testimony from a named platform."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Relevant adopter classes are identifiable—formal-philosophy researchers, historians reconstructing arguments, theorem-prover users, and proof-platform maintainers—but no named platform, methods board, product owner, or other accountable authorizer for the proposed deployment was identified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"],"uncertainty":"Oak and the research communities are analogues, not evidence that they own or would authorize the hypothesized intervention. Institutional authority and access to historical cases remain unresolved."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Most technical mechanisms have strong adjacent implementation evidence: formal language and assumption contracts, decidable fragments, bounded tactics, separate unknown outcomes, and human interpretation of formalizations. The specifically combined philosophy workflow—semantic-fidelity review, independent boundary proof review, versioned rechecks, and expert escalation—was not found as a deployed package.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S8"],"uncertainty":"The standards establish component feasibility, not effectiveness, usability, or semantic faithfulness for heterogeneous philosophical traditions. No evidence was found for the proposed 25-case audit's effect on reviewer agreement or error rates."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"OWL 2 profile and computational-property mapping","source_ids":["S3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Defines enforceable sublanguages, ties reasoning tasks to decidability and complexity, and makes the expressiveness-versus-guarantee tradeoff explicit.","remaining_difference":"It governs ontology-language reasoning, not the semantic formalization, institutional review, fallback routing, and representative-coverage risks of philosophical submissions."},{"name":"SMT-LIB and Z3 unknown/bounded-search practice","source_ids":["S4","S8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses declared logics and assumptions, distinguishes inconclusive search from negative results, supports bounded procedures, and limits completeness claims to covered classes.","remaining_difference":"It is an established solver-interface practice rather than a philosophy-platform governance process with encoding-fidelity review, independent impossibility certification, expert escalation, and recheck triggers."},{"name":"Oak philosophy-capable proof checking","source_ids":["S2"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Provides a formal representation for philosophical proofs, delegates validity checks to a theorem prover, bounds work, and reports a problem instead of claiming universal success.","remaining_difference":"It checks supplied proof steps rather than deciding consequence for every theory-claim pair and does not publish the proposed computability-status lattice, fragment map, or versioned authorization record."},{"name":"Computer verification and automated reasoning in philosophy","source_ids":["S1","S5"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Shows that philosophical arguments and theories can be formalized and checked, identifies practicing adopters, and explicitly recognizes interpretive distortion and limited scope.","remaining_difference":"The work is case-specific and human-guided; it does not start from or remediate a documented universal Boolean platform guarantee."},{"name":"Entscheidungsproblem and semidecidability","source_ids":["S6","S7"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Establishes the exact historical problem of a correct always-terminating decision procedure, the impossibility boundary for full first-order logic, decidable fragments, and one-sided recognition.","remaining_difference":"It supplies the theoretical boundary but not the proposed operational audit, user-interface statuses, deployment authority, semantic-coverage safeguards, or measured philosophy-platform outcome."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a named philosophy platform that currently exposes Boolean consequence verdicts, adding an enforceable language-and-semantics contract, reviewed computability/fragment classification, and distinct false/unknown/timeout/out-of-scope/escalation outputs will improve status accuracy and inter-reviewer agreement on representative submissions without unacceptable loss of philosophical meaning, compared with its Boolean baseline.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if the platform has no universal or timeout-to-false mismatch; if a matched total procedure already covers its enforceable language; or if a preregistered shadow audit finds no improvement in correct status separation or reviewer agreement, while semantic-fidelity failures, exclusion effects, or escalation burdens meet prespecified halt thresholds.","confidence":"MODERATE","search_limitations":"This was a bounded eight-source public-web review, not a systematic review. Product internals, private platforms, unpublished methods, patents, inaccessible literature, and additional regional terminology may have been missed. Search results establish neither exhaustive prior art nor routine adoption of the complete package."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"FAIL","rationale":"No retained source supports the specific existence claim that a philosophy platform promises universal exact terminating consequence decisions or maps timeout to false; documented systems and practices are materially narrower.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"Potential user and maintainer communities are identifiable, but the proposal does not name an actual platform or accountable board with authority and data access for the audit.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Despite substantial adjacent practice, the philosophy-specific combination of semantic-fidelity auditing, computability classification, differentiated fallback statuses, and measured reviewer agreement remains a distinct falsifiable transfer claim.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A nonbinding, preregistered shadow audit of 25 historical theory-claim pairs can compare status accuracy, reviewer agreement, encoding fidelity, and fallback routing against the Boolean baseline without affecting live decisions.","source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"The proposed nonbinding design and semantic-fidelity halt rules bound immediate risk, but no actual authorizer, data custodian, participant protections, or platform access arrangement was externally identified.","source_ids":["S2","S5"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially using direct, historical, product/standard, non-English, and component-combination terminology. Exactly eight opened direct sources from independent publishers were retained, including official standards, first-party products, and primary research.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Before running the audit, identify a named platform and accountable product or methods owner, then obtain documentary evidence of its declared guarantee and actual handling of timeout, unknown, and out-of-scope cases. If that verifies the hypothesized mismatch and authorizes read-only access, preregister and run the 25-case shadow audit with two independent reviewers and explicit semantic-fidelity halt thresholds.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded search supports only an assessment of external problem evidence, identifiable adoption, implementation analogues, and a remaining incremental test. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, completeness of prior art, routine global practice, or realized impact."}