System-Level Feasibility Analysis of Reconstructed Technological Processes (SLF-RTP): A Methodological Approach to Testing End-to-End Feasibility in Historical and Engineering Reconstructions

Abstract

This paper presents the methodological framework System-Level Feasibility Analysis of Reconstructed Technological Processes (SLF-RTP), intended for system-level analysis of the feasibility of reconstructed technological processes, primarily in historical, archaeological, and engineering-historical problems in which the means by which the observed result was achieved is not directly known and must be reconstructed from incomplete retrospective data. The method proceeds from a fundamental distinction between the local admissibility of individual operations and the feasibility of the process as a whole: a positive result at one level of analysis is not automatically carried over to the next, and establishing end-to-end feasibility requires the existence of at least one evidentially admissible, physically continuous, and internally compatible technological branch from the initial state to the final result.Within SLF-RTP, a reconstructed technological process is treated not as a collection of individually plausible operations, but as a single sequence of interconnected states and transitions between them. The analysis first determines which source data, reconstruction elements, and proposed solutions have sufficient evidentiary grounds for inclusion. It then tests whether each necessary function can be realized by a physically specified mechanism and whether the process can proceed sequentially from one state to the next without violating conditions already achieved. Such transitions are evaluated by the multifactor Transition Gate, which considers not only the local physical possibility of an operation, but also geometry, supports and load-transfer paths, the availability of working positions and resources, the controllability of the process, and the compatibility of the achieved state with subsequent stages. The causal structure of constraints is also analyzed: the logic of the Theory of Constraints (TOC) is used to identify mandatory conditions, technological branches, and subsystems without which the process cannot be brought to the required final state. SLF-RTP thereby makes it possible not only to determine whether an end-to-end feasible reconstruction exists, but also to identify the specific process segment at which, and the reason why, the technological branch under consideration ceases to be feasible.The result of the analysis is formalized in four outcome classes that distinguish established end-to-end feasibility, local feasibility without sufficient grounds for a system-level conclusion, the absence of a feasible process within an explicitly investigated reconstruction space, and an indeterminate result when the data are insufficient. This distinction prevents both the unjustified extension of a local success to the process as a whole and the excessive broadening of a negative conclusion. A negative result applies only to the reconstruction space actually defined and tested and does not assert the impossibility of every physically conceivable unknown method. At the same time, the mere assumption that an unspecified mechanism exists is not sufficient to set such a conclusion aside: a new alternative must be physically specified, have positive evidentiary grounds, and be capable of changing the established mandatory constraint. When new data or a new substantiated alternative appears, the method allows the affected level of analysis to be localized and the causally dependent part of the reconstruction to be subjected to targeted revision rather than repeating the entire study. The first full application of SLF-RTP demonstrated that the proposed requirements can be integrated into a single consistent and traceable analytical procedure; however, the applicability of the method to different classes of reconstruction problems requires further independent testing. A positive SLF-RTP result establishes the physical feasibility of the corresponding reconstruction under the specified conditions, but does not by itself prove that this particular process was actually carried out historically.