The Runtime Complexity (innermost) 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:

active(fst(0, Z)) → mark(nil)
active(fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z))) → mark(cons(Y, fst(X, Z)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(add(0, X)) → mark(X)
active(add(s(X), Y)) → mark(s(add(X, Y)))
active(len(nil)) → mark(0)
active(len(cons(X, Z))) → mark(s(len(Z)))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(fst(X1, X2)) → fst(active(X1), X2)
active(fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, active(X2))
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(add(X1, X2)) → add(active(X1), X2)
active(add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, active(X2))
active(len(X)) → len(active(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
fst(mark(X1), X2) → mark(fst(X1, X2))
fst(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(fst(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
add(mark(X1), X2) → mark(add(X1, X2))
add(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(add(X1, X2))
len(mark(X)) → mark(len(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(fst(X1, X2)) → fst(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(add(X1, X2)) → add(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(len(X)) → len(proper(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
fst(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(fst(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
add(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(add(X1, X2))
len(ok(X)) → ok(len(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST

(1) DecreasingLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Ω(n¹):
The rewrite sequence
cons(mark(X1), X2) →⁺ mark(cons(X1, X2))
gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0].
The pumping substitution is [X1 / mark(X1)].
The result substitution is [ ].

(2) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)