The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^2, INF).

(0) Obligation:

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

naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) → app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
app(Cons(x, xs), ys) → Cons(x, app(xs, ys))
notEmpty(Cons(x, xs)) → True
notEmpty(Nil) → False
naiverev(Nil) → Nil
app(Nil, ys) → ys
goal(xs) → naiverev(xs)

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) →⁺ app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [xs / Cons(x, xs)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(2) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)

(3) RenamingProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Renamed function symbols to avoid clashes with predefined symbol.

(4) Obligation:

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

naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) → app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
app(Cons(x, xs), ys) → Cons(x, app(xs, ys))
notEmpty(Cons(x, xs)) → True
notEmpty(Nil) → False
naiverev(Nil) → Nil
app(Nil, ys) → ys
goal(xs) → naiverev(xs)

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(5) TypeInferenceProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID) transformation)

Infered types.

(6) Obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) → app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
app(Cons(x, xs), ys) → Cons(x, app(xs, ys))
notEmpty(Cons(x, xs)) → True
notEmpty(Nil) → False
naiverev(Nil) → Nil
app(Nil, ys) → ys
goal(xs) → naiverev(xs)

Types:
naiverev :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Cons :: a → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
app :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Nil :: Cons:Nil
notEmpty :: Cons:Nil → True:False
True :: True:False
False :: True:False
goal :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
hole_Cons:Nil1_0 :: Cons:Nil
hole_a2_0 :: a
hole_True:False3_0 :: True:False
gen_Cons:Nil4_0 :: Nat → Cons:Nil

(7) OrderProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Heuristically decided to analyse the following defined symbols:
naiverev, app

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
app < naiverev

(8) Obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) → app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
app(Cons(x, xs), ys) → Cons(x, app(xs, ys))
notEmpty(Cons(x, xs)) → True
notEmpty(Nil) → False
naiverev(Nil) → Nil
app(Nil, ys) → ys
goal(xs) → naiverev(xs)

Types:
naiverev :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Cons :: a → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
app :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Nil :: Cons:Nil
notEmpty :: Cons:Nil → True:False
True :: True:False
False :: True:False
goal :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
hole_Cons:Nil1_0 :: Cons:Nil
hole_a2_0 :: a
hole_True:False3_0 :: True:False
gen_Cons:Nil4_0 :: Nat → Cons:Nil

Generator Equations:
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(0) ⇔ Nil
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ Cons(hole_a2_0, gen_Cons:Nil4_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
app, naiverev

They will be analysed ascendingly in the following order:
app < naiverev

(9) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n6_0), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n6_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)

Induction Base:
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(0), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)) →_R^Ω(1)
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)

Induction Step:
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n6_0, 1)), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)) →_R^Ω(1)
Cons(hole_a2_0, app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n6_0), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b))) →_IH
Cons(hole_a2_0, gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(b, c7_0)))

We have rt ∈ Ω(n¹) and sz ∈ O(n). Thus, we have irc_R ∈ Ω(n).

(10) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(11) Obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) → app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
app(Cons(x, xs), ys) → Cons(x, app(xs, ys))
notEmpty(Cons(x, xs)) → True
notEmpty(Nil) → False
naiverev(Nil) → Nil
app(Nil, ys) → ys
goal(xs) → naiverev(xs)

Types:
naiverev :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Cons :: a → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
app :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Nil :: Cons:Nil
notEmpty :: Cons:Nil → True:False
True :: True:False
False :: True:False
goal :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
hole_Cons:Nil1_0 :: Cons:Nil
hole_a2_0 :: a
hole_True:False3_0 :: True:False
gen_Cons:Nil4_0 :: Nat → Cons:Nil

Lemmas:
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n6_0), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n6_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(0) ⇔ Nil
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ Cons(hole_a2_0, gen_Cons:Nil4_0(x))

The following defined symbols remain to be analysed:
naiverev

(12) RewriteLemmaProof (LOWER BOUND(ID) transformation)

Proved the following rewrite lemma:
naiverev(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n509₀ + n509₀²)

Induction Base:
naiverev(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(0)) →_R^Ω(1)
Nil

Induction Step:
naiverev(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n509_0, 1))) →_R^Ω(1)
app(naiverev(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0)), Cons(hole_a2_0, Nil)) →_IH
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(c510_0), Cons(hole_a2_0, Nil)) →_L^{Ω(1 + n509₀)}
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n509_0, +(0, 1)))

We have rt ∈ Ω(n²) and sz ∈ O(n). Thus, we have irc_R ∈ Ω(n²).

(13) Complex Obligation (BEST)

(14) Obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) → app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
app(Cons(x, xs), ys) → Cons(x, app(xs, ys))
notEmpty(Cons(x, xs)) → True
notEmpty(Nil) → False
naiverev(Nil) → Nil
app(Nil, ys) → ys
goal(xs) → naiverev(xs)

Types:
naiverev :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Cons :: a → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
app :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Nil :: Cons:Nil
notEmpty :: Cons:Nil → True:False
True :: True:False
False :: True:False
goal :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
hole_Cons:Nil1_0 :: Cons:Nil
hole_a2_0 :: a
hole_True:False3_0 :: True:False
gen_Cons:Nil4_0 :: Nat → Cons:Nil

Lemmas:
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n6_0), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n6_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)
naiverev(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n509₀ + n509₀²)

Generator Equations:
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(0) ⇔ Nil
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ Cons(hole_a2_0, gen_Cons:Nil4_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(15) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n²) was proven with the following lemma:
naiverev(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n509₀ + n509₀²)

(16) BOUNDS(n^2, INF)

(17) Obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) → app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
app(Cons(x, xs), ys) → Cons(x, app(xs, ys))
notEmpty(Cons(x, xs)) → True
notEmpty(Nil) → False
naiverev(Nil) → Nil
app(Nil, ys) → ys
goal(xs) → naiverev(xs)

Types:
naiverev :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Cons :: a → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
app :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Nil :: Cons:Nil
notEmpty :: Cons:Nil → True:False
True :: True:False
False :: True:False
goal :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
hole_Cons:Nil1_0 :: Cons:Nil
hole_a2_0 :: a
hole_True:False3_0 :: True:False
gen_Cons:Nil4_0 :: Nat → Cons:Nil

Lemmas:
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n6_0), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n6_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)
naiverev(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n509₀ + n509₀²)

Generator Equations:
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(0) ⇔ Nil
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ Cons(hole_a2_0, gen_Cons:Nil4_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(18) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n²) was proven with the following lemma:
naiverev(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n509_0), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n509₀ + n509₀²)

(19) BOUNDS(n^2, INF)

(20) Obligation:

Innermost TRS:
Rules:
naiverev(Cons(x, xs)) → app(naiverev(xs), Cons(x, Nil))
app(Cons(x, xs), ys) → Cons(x, app(xs, ys))
notEmpty(Cons(x, xs)) → True
notEmpty(Nil) → False
naiverev(Nil) → Nil
app(Nil, ys) → ys
goal(xs) → naiverev(xs)

Types:
naiverev :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Cons :: a → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
app :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
Nil :: Cons:Nil
notEmpty :: Cons:Nil → True:False
True :: True:False
False :: True:False
goal :: Cons:Nil → Cons:Nil
hole_Cons:Nil1_0 :: Cons:Nil
hole_a2_0 :: a
hole_True:False3_0 :: True:False
gen_Cons:Nil4_0 :: Nat → Cons:Nil

Lemmas:
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n6_0), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n6_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)

Generator Equations:
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(0) ⇔ Nil
gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(x, 1)) ⇔ Cons(hole_a2_0, gen_Cons:Nil4_0(x))

No more defined symbols left to analyse.

(21) LowerBoundsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The lowerbound Ω(n¹) was proven with the following lemma:
app(gen_Cons:Nil4_0(n6_0), gen_Cons:Nil4_0(b)) → gen_Cons:Nil4_0(+(n6_0, b)), rt ∈ Ω(1 + n6₀)

(22) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)