{"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 platform automated theorem proving philosophical theories claims consequence verdict","formal philosophy platform submit theory claim theorem prover","philosophy argument platform formal logic automatic validity checker philosophical arguments"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":"No retained source identifies an operating philosophy research platform that promises exact terminating consequence judgments for every submitted theory-and-claim pair or maps timeouts to false."},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["computational metaphysics automated theorem prover philosophy platform formal theories claims","TPTP SZS ontology official status Timeout Unknown Theorem CounterSatisfiable","first order logic undecidable decidable fragments official documentation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["Entscheidungsproblem philosophical logic mechanical procedure consequence decision problem Church 1936","decidable fragment map proof witness semi-decision procedure formal logic"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["automated theorem prover timeout unknown status false SZS ontology","W3C OWL 2 profiles decidability reasoner termination specification","philosophy argument platform formal logic automatic validity checker philosophical arguments"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["site:de automatisches Beweisen Philosophie Unentscheidbarkeit Aussagenlogik Prädikatenlogik","site:fr preuve automatique philosophie indécidabilité logique"],"source_ids":["SRC6","SRC8"],"no_result_note":"The retained French source confirms regional terminology and the distinction between decidability and semi-decidability; the German-hosted computational-metaphysics project documents selected philosophical formalizations, but neither establishes the hypothesized universal platform."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["theorem prover formalization adequacy independent review encoding fidelity philosophical arguments","timeout is not false automated theorem proving unknown bounded search expert review","formal verification logic versioning recheck assumptions change decision procedure","decidable fragment map proof witness semi-decision procedure formal logic"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":"The sources cover formalization adequacy, restricted languages, one-sided recognition, differentiated no-success states, and independent checking; no retained source documents the proposal's complete versioned philosophy-platform workflow."}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Automated Reasoning","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-automated/","publisher":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University","date_or_year":"2024 substantive revision","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Automated reasoning requires specification of the problem class, representation language, and deductive calculus.","Proof search can terminate with a proof, detection of no proof, or resource exhaustion.","Automated and interactive theorem provers are applied to selected problems in logic and philosophy.","Independent checking of generated proofs or models can increase confidence."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"A Note on the Entscheidungsproblem","url":"https://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/idocs/church_ent.pdf","publisher":"The Journal of Symbolic Logic / Association for Symbolic Logic","date_or_year":"1936","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Church proved unsolvability of the general Entscheidungsproblem for a specified symbolic-logical setting.","An impossibility claim depends on a defined formal system and matched assumptions rather than on observed timeouts."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","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 formal reasoning language can be divided into syntactically enforceable profiles with different expressiveness and computational properties.","The standard separately records decidable, undecidable, and open decidability cases.","Restricting expressiveness can enable simpler or polynomial-time reasoning while sacrificing language coverage."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"SZS Ontology","url":"https://tptp.org/UserDocs/SZSOntology/","publisher":"TPTP World","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Operational theorem-proving practice distinguishes semantic results such as Theorem and CounterSatisfiable from no-success states.","Timeout, resource exhaustion, incompleteness, inappropriate input, open status, and unverified output have distinct labels.","A timeout is not itself a negative logical verdict."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Oak","url":"https://oakproof.org/","publisher":"Oak proof checker project","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["A public proof checker explicitly supports statements from philosophy as well as mathematics and theology.","Oak checks user-supplied proofs rather than promising to construct proofs for every claim.","It translates proof steps to first-order logic and stops with a problem indication when validity is not established or a work bound is exceeded."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Computational Metaphysics","url":"https://christoph-benzmueller.de/compmeta/htdocs/","publisher":"Computational Metaphysics project, Christoph Benzmüller / Freie Universität Berlin","date_or_year":"Undated project page; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Researchers use interactive and automated theorem provers to formalize and assess selected rational arguments in metaphysics.","The project describes selected applications rather than universal adjudication of arbitrary philosophical theories.","Formal analysis presupposes digitalization and a chosen logical representation."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Formalization in Philosophy","url":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/formalization-in-philosophy/96320F183D6EE000732E42ED580B15A1","publisher":"Cambridge University Press for the Association for Symbolic Logic","date_or_year":"2000; online 2014","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Formalization in philosophy has both advantages and disadvantages.","The relationship between formal models and the philosophical concepts that motivate them is problematic and should be discussed explicitly.","Internal formal correctness does not by itself settle whether a formal model faithfully represents the intended philosophical issue."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Décidabilité","url":"https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/philosophie/d%C3%A9cidabilit%C3%A9/191437","publisher":"Larousse, Dictionnaire de la philosophie","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OTHER","language":"French","claims_supported":["French philosophical terminology distinguishes decidability from semi-decidability.","A semi-decision procedure can return a positive verdict for members while failing to return an answer for nonmembers.","Predicate-calculus theoremhood is presented as a standard example of semi-decidability."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The underlying technical hazard is real: general logical consequence can be undecidable, theorem-proving systems distinguish timeout from negative semantic results, and philosophical formalization is representation-relative. However, no retained source supports the proposal's specific empirical premise that an identifiable philosophy platform promises universal exact terminating judgments or converts unresolved searches into false.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The proposed platform, its documentation, its Boolean interface behavior, and historical error records are unspecified; therefore the claimed deployment problem could be absent or merely hypothetical."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","finding":"Oak and the Computational Metaphysics project show identifiable practitioners who formalize or check philosophical arguments, but neither is shown to make the hypothesized universal guarantee or to need this intervention. The proposed 'platform methods board' is a role description, not an identified organization or authorizer.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6"],"uncertainty":"A real platform owner, methods board, formal-methods reviewer, and authority to run the proposed audit have not been identified."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Most technical components have established analogues: matched undecidability results, restricted decidable profiles, one-sided recognition, differentiated timeout and unknown states, proof artifacts, and independent checking. Philosophy-specific work also recognizes formalization adequacy. No source demonstrates the complete integrated package—versioned boundary records, dependency-sensitive fragment narrowing, recheck triggers, expert escalation, and governance—in routine use on a philosophy research platform.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"Transfer from formal reasoning standards to semantically diverse philosophical submissions depends on faithful encoding, enforceable fragment membership, and organizational workflow evidence not supplied by the public sources."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Church's solution of the Entscheidungsproblem","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It directly addresses an unrestricted demand for a uniform terminating logical decision procedure by proving a model-relative impossibility result.","remaining_difference":"It is a foundational theorem, not a governed platform workflow with fallback outputs, versioning, encoding review, and a philosophy-specific pilot."},{"name":"OWL 2 profiles and complexity map","source_ids":["SRC3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It formally restricts a reasoning language into enforceable profiles and publishes decidability and complexity boundaries for specified reasoning tasks.","remaining_difference":"It concerns standardized ontology languages, not the adequacy of encoding open-ended philosophical theories or platform adjudication governance."},{"name":"TPTP SZS result and no-success ontology","source_ids":["SRC4"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"It operationalizes distinct semantic-success, timeout, resource, incomplete, open, and verification states instead of collapsing every run into a Boolean result.","remaining_difference":"It classifies solver outputs but does not require a class-wide computability audit, philosophical encoding review, authorizer decision, or recheck-on-formalism-change record."},{"name":"Oak and Computational Metaphysics","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"They directly apply formal languages and theorem provers to philosophical claims or proofs and bound their claims to supplied proofs or selected rational arguments.","remaining_difference":"The pages do not publish the proposal's explicit solvability lattice, decidable-subclass map, versioned guarantee record, or controlled comparison of differentiated fallback states against a Boolean baseline."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"For an identified philosophy platform that currently makes or implies a total Boolean consequence guarantee, adding an independently reviewed, versioned, model-relative computability boundary record together with separately surfaced false, unknown, timeout, out-of-scope, and proof-witness states will improve status correctness and inter-reviewer agreement on historical submissions without materially reducing encoding fidelity, compared with the current Boolean workflow.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if the platform makes no total guarantee, already uses an equivalent reviewed boundary-and-status workflow, has an enforceably bounded language with a proved total procedure, or a blinded historical-pair comparison finds no guarantee mismatch and no improvement in status correctness, reviewer agreement, or separation of false from non-success states while detecting equal or worse encoding fidelity.","confidence":"MODERATE","search_limitations":"This was a bounded public-web search using exactly eight retained direct sources. One retained research source was accessible only through its abstract. Search did not inspect proprietary platform documentation, source code, incident logs, contracts, patents, or interviews, and cannot rule out unindexed or nonpublic implementations."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"FAIL","rationale":"Public evidence supports the general computability and status-handling hazard but not the asserted existence of a platform making the universal guarantee or converting timeouts to false.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"Relevant philosophy-formalization practitioners are identifiable, but no actual adopter, platform methods board, or person authorized to approve the proposed audit is identified.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Despite strong adjacent prior art, the integrated philosophy-platform claim remains contrastive and falsifiable through measured guarantee mismatches, status classification, reviewer agreement, and encoding-fidelity outcomes.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A nonbinding shadow audit of 25 historical theory-and-claim pairs with two reviewers, fixed status labels, encoding-fidelity checks, and no effect on live decisions is bounded and capable of falsifying the incremental claim.","source_ids":["SRC4","SRC7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed evidence step is nonbinding and includes human review, excluded automated rejection, independent boundary review, and halt conditions for semantic distortion or decision leakage. Authority identification is unresolved but separately captured by the adopter gate and need not block a properly authorized archival shadow study.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC7"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially, including historical Entscheidungsproblem terminology, standards and products, French and German/regional terminology, and component combinations. Eight direct sources from independent publishers were retained and opened, including primary research, an official standard, and first-party project documentation.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Before running the 25-case audit, identify one real platform and its authorizer, obtain its public or internal guarantee language and timeout-to-output mapping, and verify that it actually makes the hypothesized total Boolean commitment. If that prerequisite is met, preregister the shadow comparison using TPTP-like differentiated statuses and independent encoding-fidelity review.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded search supports only an adjacent-prior-art disposition and a context-specific remaining research claim. It does not establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, routine adoption, or realized impact."}