{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_external_scrutiny_20260804","cell_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy","opaque_id":"negative_space_design__philosophy__B","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["formal philosophy automated theorem prover unknown timeout undecidable thesis interface","\"Unknown\" \"timeout\" theorem prover user interface result status","philosophy theorem prover interface unknown result formalization assumptions computational metaphysics"],"source_ids":["SRC4","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["SMT-LIB standard unknown reason-unknown solver response official","TPTP SZS ontology unknown timeout theorem status official","theorem prover proof session unknown timeout record prover version time limit obsolete re-run official documentation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["older automated theorem proving terminology proof found no proof resource limit unknown result semi-decision","Turing 1936 Entscheidungsproblem original paper PDF computable numbers","automated reasoning status ontology theorem timeout resource out input error unknown standard"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":"Historical searches covered Entscheidungsproblem, semidecision, automated deduction, fragments, no-success, and resource-out terminology. The retained standards and historical overview were more probative than the located reproductions of early papers."},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["SMT-LIB standard unknown reason-unknown solver response official","TPTP SZS ontology unknown timeout theorem status official","site:w3.org/TR OWL 2 profiles decidability polynomial time official","theorem prover proof session unknown timeout record prover version time limit obsolete re-run official documentation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["deutsch Theorembeweiser Ergebnis unbekannt Zeitüberschreitung unentscheidbar","français démonstrateur automatique résultat inconnu indécidable délai d'attente","site:uni-stuttgart.de Theorembeweiser semi-entscheidbar unbekannt Beweis Zeit Ressourcen PDF"],"source_ids":[],"no_result_note":"German and French searches found regional teaching material using terms such as semi-entscheidbar, unbekannt, unentscheidbar, inconnu, and indécidable, but no non-English source was retained because it added less direct evidence than the eight selected standards, products, and domain systems."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["formalization residue assumptions theorem prover interface unknown result explanation","automated reasoning status ontology theorem timeout resource out input error unknown standard","philosophy theorem prover interface unknown result formalization assumptions computational metaphysics","theorem prover proof session unknown timeout record prover version time limit obsolete re-run official documentation"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","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":["SMT solvers have a standardized unknown response distinct from sat and unsat.","After unknown, a solver may expose a reason such as memory exhaustion or incompleteness for the formula class.","The standard requires declared logics and distinguishes command errors from solver answers."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"SZS Ontology","url":"https://tptp.org/UserDocs/SZSOntology/","publisher":"TPTP","date_or_year":"accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Automated-reasoning software already uses a detailed status ontology separating theorem, counter-satisfiable, open, timeout, memory-out, incompleteness, and syntax, semantic, or type errors.","The standard associates successful statuses with justificatory artifacts such as proofs and models.","Software-specific explanatory information can accompany a status."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"The Why3 Tools — Why3 1.8.2 Documentation","url":"https://why3.org/doc/manpages.html","publisher":"Why3","date_or_year":"Why3 1.8.2; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Why3 sessions record prover name and version, time and memory limits, elapsed time, and result.","Why3 separately reports valid, invalid, timeout, out-of-memory, unknown, failure, and invocation failure.","Proof attempts made against an earlier task version are marked obsolete and must be replayed, implementing a recheck trigger."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"Interfaces for Understanding cvc5","url":"https://cvc5.github.io/blog/2024/04/15/interfaces-for-understanding-cvc5.html","publisher":"cvc5 Project","date_or_year":"2024-04-15","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["cvc5 exposes proofs, unsatisfiable cores, timeout cores, assertion difficulty, and explanations for unknown results.","Unknown explanations can distinguish resource limits, incomplete heuristics, unsupported theory combinations, and configuration choices.","The developers report that users are often unaware of diagnostic information available after timeout or unknown, supporting an interface-level interpretation problem."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","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":["A formal language can publish syntactically checkable profiles that trade expressiveness for reasoning guarantees.","OWL 2 EL, QL, and RL define restricted fragments with stated decidability or complexity properties.","Fragment restriction is established standards practice rather than a novel causal lever."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Computational Philosophy","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-philosophy/","publisher":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","date_or_year":"2024","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Theorem provers have a substantial history of use in philosophy, including logic, ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion.","Computational philosophy applies Prover9, Mace4, Isabelle/HOL, and higher-order provers to encoded philosophical arguments.","The proposed adopter domain is real rather than hypothetical."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Computational Metaphysics","url":"https://mally.stanford.edu/cm/","publisher":"Stanford University Metaphysics Research Lab","date_or_year":"accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["An identifiable research group operates formal, axiomatic philosophical inquiries in automated and interactive reasoning environments.","The project uses Prover9, Mace4, TPTP-compatible provers, and Isabelle/HOL.","The group maintains formalization files and readable renderings, identifying a plausible adopter and records substrate."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Oak","url":"https://oakproof.org/","publisher":"Oak / Tim Smith","date_or_year":"accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Oak is an identifiable proof-checking system explicitly intended for statements in mathematics, philosophy, or theology.","Oak says that when a step is invalid or the external prover exceeds an amount-of-work bound, it stops and reports that there was a problem.","This is a direct example in the target domain where logical failure and resource-bounded non-resolution are described under one coarse presentation."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The semantic problem exists: unrestricted or incomplete proof search cannot warrant a binary answer in every case, and established standards explicitly separate successful conclusions from unknown, timeout, resource exhaustion, incompleteness, and malformed input. A target-domain example, Oak, groups invalidity and exceeded work under the coarse message that there was a problem, while cvc5 reports that users are often unaware of available unknown diagnostics. However, no retained source measures philosophers or students actually mistaking bounded failure for refutation, and several mature systems already avoid binary closure.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The prevalence and behavioral consequence of false closure in formal-philosophy interfaces are unmeasured. The evidence establishes a credible mechanism and at least one coarse interface, not population-level harm."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Identifiable adopters and authorizers exist. The Stanford Computational Metaphysics project operates philosophical formalizations across Prover9, TPTP systems, and Isabelle/HOL; Oak, created by Tim Smith, explicitly supports philosophy and exposes a user-facing proof-checking workflow. Their maintainers could authorize presentation experiments on their own archived records, subject to formalization-author and participant consent.","source_ids":["SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The sources do not show that either project has requested this intervention or agreed to participate."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"All core technical primitives are implemented elsewhere: explicit unknown and reason codes, granular no-success statuses, proof/model artifacts, declared logic or fragment restrictions, recorded resource bounds and versions, preserved sessions, stale-result detection and replay, and diagnostics for timeout residue. The remaining work is primarily integration into a philosophy-facing presentation and evaluation protocol.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5"],"uncertainty":"Plain-language explanations, dissent preservation, and reader-facing recheck notifications are not shown as one integrated philosophy interface."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"SMT-LIB unknown response and reason-unknown interface","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC4"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Provides a protected non-binary result, reason codes for incompleteness or resource limits, declared logic, and solver diagnostics.","remaining_difference":"It is a solver protocol rather than a philosophy-facing verdict interface and does not test reader interpretation or preserve philosophical dissent and formalization residue as such."},{"name":"TPTP SZS success and no-success ontologies","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Separates certified theorem or countermodel statuses from open, timeout, memory-out, incompleteness, inappropriate input, and syntax, semantic, or type errors; it also links results to proofs or models.","remaining_difference":"It standardizes machine-readable reporting but does not supply the proposed reader study, plain-language philosophical context, or an integrated change-triggered review process."},{"name":"Why3 proof-session result and replay model","source_ids":["SRC3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Records result type, prover identity and version, time and memory bounds, and marks earlier results obsolete when the task changes, requiring replay.","remaining_difference":"It is a verification-development environment, not a formal-philosophy inquiry service, and its effect on non-expert verdict interpretation is not established."},{"name":"OWL 2 restricted profiles","source_ids":["SRC5"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Publishes syntactic fragment boundaries and associated reasoning guarantees, closely matching the proposal's language-fragment restriction.","remaining_difference":"It addresses ontology-language engineering rather than submitted philosophical theses, unknown presentation, or user interpretation."},{"name":"Oak philosophy-capable proof checker","source_ids":["SRC8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Offers a concrete philosophy-facing proof interface and acknowledges both invalid steps and exceeded work bounds.","remaining_difference":"Its public description collapses those cases into a generic problem report rather than the proposed reason-labelled UNKNOWN with scope, bounds, residue, and recheck rules."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"For archived formal-philosophy thesis records, a reader-facing, reason-labelled UNKNOWN presentation that shows scope, resource bounds, assumptions and formalization residue, and recheck conditions will improve correct classification of unresolved versus refuted versus malformed results over a coarse fail, timeout, or generic-problem presentation, without materially increasing false readings or abandonment.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The incremental claim would be eliminated if a formal-philosophy system is found that already routinely combines reason-labelled UNKNOWN, published fragment or promise boundaries, proof or model artifacts, preserved assumptions and formalization residue, change-triggered replay, and controlled evidence that this package improves reader interpretation; it is experimentally falsified if the proposed controlled comparison shows no accuracy improvement or greater false interpretation.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"This was a bounded public-web search using exactly eight retained direct sources. It covered direct formulations, historical terminology, standards and products, German and French terminology, and component combinations. It did not exhaust paywalled literature, source-code histories, private deployments, patents, or every regional vocabulary, and cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Standards and products demonstrate that bounded or incomplete proof search requires non-binary statuses, while Oak supplies a target-domain example that coarsely groups invalidity and exceeded work. The specific behavioral harm remains to be measured, but the operational problem is externally supported.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4","SRC8"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The Stanford Computational Metaphysics project and Oak have identifiable operators, formalization records, and philosophy-facing use cases capable of authorizing a reversible study on their own materials.","source_ids":["SRC7","SRC8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Existing standards establish the mechanism components but do not establish the domain-specific causal effect on readers. Interpretation accuracy under an integrated reason-labelled UNKNOWN presentation remains distinct and falsifiable.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC7","SRC8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A preregistered comparison using 40 archived, non-live records and 20 consenting readers is bounded and technically feasible. Records can be stratified across proved, refuted, timeout, incomplete, malformed, and stale-result cases, with status-classification accuracy as the primary outcome.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC7","SRC8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A non-live, consent-based presentation study can be authorized by the system owner without making policy or moral decisions. Independent logical review of fragment and impossibility certificates, author control over formalizations, evidence visibility, and immediate rollback address the material risks; no external source revealed a mandatory authority barrier.","source_ids":["SRC7","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required search lanes were covered. Eight retained sources were opened, span six independent publishers, and include three official standards plus four first-party project or product sources. The closest standards, products, domain projects, and a direct philosophy-capable interface were examined.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":true,"screen_survival":true,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Preregister and run the proposed reversible pilot on 40 archived formal-philosophy records with 20 consenting readers. Counterbalance baseline and intervention presentations; stratify records by proved, refuted or countermodelled, timeout, incomplete, malformed, out-of-fragment, and stale statuses; hold evidence and reading time constant; make correct result-status classification the primary endpoint and abandonment, false-as-UNKNOWN readings, and hidden-evidence reports secondary endpoints. Require an independent logician to approve every fragment or impossibility certificate before exposure and apply the stated rollback rule.","world_novelty_boundary":"The bounded search supports only a contrastive research claim about a philosophy-facing integration and reader-interpretation test. Explicit UNKNOWN, reason codes, fragment restrictions, result provenance, diagnostic residue, and replay triggers are established in adjacent formal-reasoning practice. No claim is made to world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, routine adoption in philosophy, or realized epistemic impact."}