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(first(0, X)) → mark(nil)
active(first(s(X), cons(Y, Z))) → mark(cons(Y, first(X, Z)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(first(X1, X2)) → first(active(X1), X2)
active(first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, active(X2))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
first(mark(X1), X2) → mark(first(X1, X2))
first(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(first(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
proper(first(X1, X2)) → first(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
first(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(first(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(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
first(mark(X1), X2) →⁺ mark(first(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)