I am not a research mathematician. But I think it's pretty clear you could get a bunch of research mathematicians in a room to more clearly define what a result looks like that is "outside of the convex hull", so to speak.

Most importantly, you don't need to define it 100%. You just need to come up with a bunch of specific examples where one would say "the proof of this would be outside the convex hull" and get wide consensus as to why, and then you'd have your falsifiable hypothesis.