The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).

(0) Obligation:

Runtime Complexity TRS:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(plus(x, y), l))
sum(app(l, cons(x, cons(y, k)))) → sum(app(l, sum(cons(x, cons(y, k)))))
sum(plus(cons(0, x), cons(y, l))) → pred(sum(cons(s(x), cons(y, l))))
pred(cons(s(x), nil)) → cons(x, nil)
plus(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(plus(if(gt(x, y), x, y), if(not(gt(x, y)), id(x), id(y)))))
plus(s(x), x) → plus(if(gt(x, x), id(x), id(x)), s(x))
plus(zero, y) → y
plus(id(x), s(y)) → s(plus(x, if(gt(s(y), y), y, s(y))))
id(x) → x
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
not(x) → if(x, false, true)
gt(s(x), zero) → true
gt(zero, y) → false
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)

Rewrite Strategy: FULL

(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
app(cons(x, l), k) →⁺ cons(x, app(l, k))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [1].
The pumping substitution is [l / cons(x, l)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(2) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)