* Step 1: Bounds WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Strict TRS:
            f(mark(X)) -> mark(f(X))
            f(ok(X)) -> ok(f(X))
            g(ok(X)) -> ok(g(X))
            proper(a()) -> ok(a())
            top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
            top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))
        - Signature:
            {f/1,g/1,proper/1,top/1} / {a/0,active/1,mark/1,ok/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {f,g,proper,top} and constructors {a,active,mark,ok}
    + Applied Processor:
        Bounds {initialAutomaton = minimal, enrichment = match}
    + Details:
        The problem is match-bounded by 2.
        The enriched problem is compatible with follwoing automaton.
          a_0() -> 2
          a_1() -> 3
          active_0(2) -> 2
          active_1(2) -> 4
          active_2(3) -> 5
          f_0(2) -> 1
          f_1(2) -> 3
          g_0(2) -> 1
          g_1(2) -> 3
          mark_0(2) -> 2
          mark_1(3) -> 1
          mark_1(3) -> 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
* Step 2: EmptyProcessor WORST_CASE(?,O(1))
    + Considered Problem:
        - Weak TRS:
            f(mark(X)) -> mark(f(X))
            f(ok(X)) -> ok(f(X))
            g(ok(X)) -> ok(g(X))
            proper(a()) -> ok(a())
            top(mark(X)) -> top(proper(X))
            top(ok(X)) -> top(active(X))
        - Signature:
            {f/1,g/1,proper/1,top/1} / {a/0,active/1,mark/1,ok/1}
        - Obligation:
            innermost runtime complexity wrt. defined symbols {f,g,proper,top} and constructors {a,active,mark,ok}
    + Applied Processor:
        EmptyProcessor
    + Details:
        The problem is already closed. The intended complexity is O(1).

WORST_CASE(?,O(n^1))