* Step 1: Bounds WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            __(X1,mark(X2)) -> mark(__(X1,X2))
            __(mark(X1),X2) -> mark(__(X1,X2))
            __(ok(X1),ok(X2)) -> ok(__(X1,X2))
            and(mark(X1),X2) -> mark(and(X1,X2))
            and(ok(X1),ok(X2)) -> ok(and(X1,X2))
            isList(ok(X)) -> ok(isList(X))
            isNeList(ok(X)) -> ok(isNeList(X))
            isNePal(ok(X)) -> ok(isNePal(X))
            isPal(ok(X)) -> ok(isPal(X))
            isQid(ok(X)) -> ok(isQid(X))
            proper(a()) -> ok(a())
            proper(e()) -> ok(e())
            proper(i()) -> ok(i())
            proper(nil()) -> ok(nil())
            proper(o()) -> ok(o())
            proper(tt()) -> ok(tt())
            proper(u()) -> ok(u())
            top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
            top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))
        - Signature:
            {__/2,and/2,isList/1,isNeList/1,isNePal/1,isPal/1,isQid/1,proper/1,top/1} / {a/0,active/1,e/0,i/0,mark/1
            ,nil/0,o/0,ok/1,tt/0,u/0}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {__,and,isList,isNeList,isNePal,isPal,isQid,proper
            ,top} and constructors {a,active,e,i,mark,nil,o,ok,tt,u}
    + Applied Processor:
        Bounds {initialAutomaton = minimal, enrichment = match}
    + Details:
        The problem is match-bounded by 2.
        The enriched problem is compatible with follwoing automaton.
          ___0(2,2) -> 1
          ___1(2,2) -> 3
          a_0() -> 2
          a_1() -> 3
          active_0(2) -> 2
          active_1(2) -> 4
          active_2(3) -> 5
          and_0(2,2) -> 1
          and_1(2,2) -> 3
          e_0() -> 2
          e_1() -> 3
          i_0() -> 2
          i_1() -> 3
          isList_0(2) -> 1
          isList_1(2) -> 3
          isNeList_0(2) -> 1
          isNeList_1(2) -> 3
          isNePal_0(2) -> 1
          isNePal_1(2) -> 3
          isPal_0(2) -> 1
          isPal_1(2) -> 3
          isQid_0(2) -> 1
          isQid_1(2) -> 3
          mark_0(2) -> 2
          mark_1(3) -> 1
          mark_1(3) -> 3
          nil_0() -> 2
          nil_1() -> 3
          o_0() -> 2
          o_1() -> 3
          ok_0(2) -> 2
          ok_1(3) -> 1
          ok_1(3) -> 3
          ok_1(3) -> 4
          proper_0(2) -> 1
          proper_1(2) -> 4
          top_0(2) -> 1
          top_1(4) -> 1
          top_2(5) -> 1
          tt_0() -> 2
          tt_1() -> 3
          u_0() -> 2
          u_1() -> 3
* Step 2: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Weak TRS:
            __(X1,mark(X2)) -> mark(__(X1,X2))
            __(mark(X1),X2) -> mark(__(X1,X2))
            __(ok(X1),ok(X2)) -> ok(__(X1,X2))
            and(mark(X1),X2) -> mark(and(X1,X2))
            and(ok(X1),ok(X2)) -> ok(and(X1,X2))
            isList(ok(X)) -> ok(isList(X))
            isNeList(ok(X)) -> ok(isNeList(X))
            isNePal(ok(X)) -> ok(isNePal(X))
            isPal(ok(X)) -> ok(isPal(X))
            isQid(ok(X)) -> ok(isQid(X))
            proper(a()) -> ok(a())
            proper(e()) -> ok(e())
            proper(i()) -> ok(i())
            proper(nil()) -> ok(nil())
            proper(o()) -> ok(o())
            proper(tt()) -> ok(tt())
            proper(u()) -> ok(u())
            top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
            top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))
        - Signature:
            {__/2,and/2,isList/1,isNeList/1,isNePal/1,isPal/1,isQid/1,proper/1,top/1} / {a/0,active/1,e/0,i/0,mark/1
            ,nil/0,o/0,ok/1,tt/0,u/0}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {__,and,isList,isNeList,isNePal,isPal,isQid,proper
            ,top} and constructors {a,active,e,i,mark,nil,o,ok,tt,u}
    + Applied Processor:
        EmptyProcessor
    + Details:
        The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))