{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_external48_20260801","source_assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__rhetoric","selection_stratum":"DEPLOYABLE_PRIORITY","search_queries":["site:gov.uk guidance content lifecycle outdated content review archive content owner","site:archives.gov records management version control content lifecycle official guidance","site:experienceleague.adobe.com expiration content fragments launch deactivation official","site:learn.microsoft.com Purview retention labels disposition review record version SharePoint official","site:learn.microsoft.com SharePoint content approval version history expiration date official documentation"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Retire outdated content","publisher":"UK Government Digital Service","url":"https://guidance.publishing.service.gov.uk/writing-to-gov-uk-standards/plan-manage-content/retire-content/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["GOV.UK withdrawal preserves content at its URL while removing it from internal search and displaying a non-current banner.","History mode lowers search prominence and labels prior-government content, including speeches, press releases, policy papers, and news.","Withdrawal is reversible, and guidance cautions against withdrawal without confirmed supersession."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"HHS Website Content Lifecycle Management (CLM) and Archive Guidance","publisher":"U.S. Department of Health and Human Services","url":"https://www.hhs.gov/digital/policies/web/content-lifecycle-management/index.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2024-02-15","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["HHS requires annual content-owner review and generates reports identifying material needing review.","HHS uses retain, revise, remove, and archive categories and separates historical documentation from current information.","Superseded content can be archived for historical context, while ownership and records responsibility remain with the originating office.","The guidance expressly excludes internal collaboration sites, limiting direct applicability to the candidate's internal repositories."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"NARA Guidance on Managing Web Records","publisher":"U.S. National Archives and Records Administration","url":"https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/policy/managing-web-records.html","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2005-01-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Trustworthy records require reliability, authenticity, integrity, and usability.","Policies should protect records against unauthorized deletion or alteration and document changes.","Content, context, structure, and relationships must be preserved to support later interpretation and reconstruction."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Plan document versioning, content approval, and check-out controls in SharePoint Server","publisher":"Microsoft","url":"https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/governance/versioning-content-approval-and-check-out-planning","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2023-01-25","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["SharePoint provides versioning, approval states, permissions-based publication, workflows, and retained version histories.","Approvers can control which version becomes visible while previous approved versions remain in history.","Check-in metadata and comments can create an ongoing record of changes."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Learn about retention for SharePoint and OneDrive","publisher":"Microsoft","url":"https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/retention-policies-sharepoint","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2025-09-22","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Microsoft Purview can preserve originals when governed content is changed or deleted.","Retention policies, records, regulatory records, preservation holds, version retention, archived sites, disposition review, and simulation mode are supported.","Retention and eDiscovery holds can prevent automatic purging of old versions."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Customize what happens at the end of the retention period","publisher":"Microsoft","url":"https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/retention-label-flow","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026-02-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["End-of-retention actions include deletion, relabeling, label deactivation, disposition review, notifications, and archival movement.","Retention events can trigger configurable workflows and integrate with existing records-management procedures.","Workflow operation requires monitoring and has documented timing and configuration limitations."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Disposition of content","publisher":"Microsoft","url":"https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/purview/disposition","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2025-03-31","accessed_at":"2026-08-02","claims_supported":["Disposition requires designated roles, permissions, auditing, and assigned reviewers.","Reviewers can suspend deletion for litigation or audit, relabel or extend retention, archive historically valuable content, and use multistage review.","Disposition actions and reviewer comments are recorded in history and audit events."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"GOV.UK identifies the concrete failure mode of obsolete material outranking current guidance and applies lifecycle treatment to speeches, press releases, and policy material. HHS likewise treats inaccurate or outdated content as a trustworthiness risk and separates historical from current material. These sources verify the general mechanism and closely related rhetorical content, but they do not establish the prevalence or consequences of stale reuse inside shared talking-point and rebuttal repositories.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"HHS assigns recurring review to content owners and managers while retaining records responsibility in originating offices; GOV.UK reserves some retirement actions to GDS or managing editors; Microsoft implements approver and disposition-reviewer roles. This demonstrates credible adopters and authorizers for lifecycle governance, but not expressed demand for the candidate's internal rhetorical-asset workflow or willingness to bear its review burden.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S7"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"GOV.UK withdrawal and history mode","similarity":"This is a direct analogue for speeches, press releases, policy papers, and news: context or age can trigger a banner, lower search prominence, removal from internal results, preservation at the original URL, replacement links, and reversible withdrawal.","remaining_difference":"It governs published government content rather than distributed internal claim sheets, examples, rebuttals, and speech modules. The documentation does not test dependency-aware classification or whether lifecycle states reduce stale material entering drafts.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"HHS content lifecycle and archive program","similarity":"It assigns owners, schedules review, reports potentially outdated material, distinguishes retain/revise/remove/archive states, marks archives non-current, and preserves historical context.","remaining_difference":"HHS expressly excludes internal collaboration systems from this guidance and does not address rhetorical-module dependencies, audience-specific fitness, or draft-retrieval outcomes.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"SharePoint and Microsoft Purview document/records lifecycle stack","similarity":"The combined product supports versions, approval states, publication visibility, historical records, retention labels, preservation holds, expiration workflows, relabeling, archives, simulation, permissions, auditing, and human disposition review.","remaining_difference":"These are generic document and records controls. They do not themselves adjudicate rhetorical fitness or demonstrate that a dependency-aware active-authority layer improves drafting retrieval, correction time, and reconstruction jointly.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"A still-testable incremental claim is that applying integrated, dependency-aware active-authority states specifically to reusable internal rhetorical modules across distributed repositories will reduce obsolete or context-mismatched assets entering drafts, relative to ordinary search and a current-only handbook, without increasing missed-current assets, missed holds, or reconstruction failures. The bounded search did not find an evaluation of that combined claim.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Official systems and operating guidance already implement nearly every technical primitive needed for the read-only study: metadata states, approval roles, version histories, search demotion, reversible withdrawal, retention holds, review workflows, archives, simulation, and auditing. Technical feasibility is therefore strong for a 100-asset simulation. Reliable rhetorical-fitness classification, cross-repository identity resolution, dependency detection, and scaled reviewer consistency remain unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Official guidance recognizes that outdated content can obstruct access to current information and harm trustworthiness, including for speech and press-release content. Internal prevalence, reuse frequency, and downstream harm magnitude have not been measured.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Government programs already assign owners, editors, records officers, and reviewers to lifecycle work, showing institutional relevance. No source demonstrates demand for this particular internal rhetorical-asset layer or acceptance of its recurring workload.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S7"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Search demotion, current-status banners, reversible withdrawal, lifecycle categories, approvals, version history, holds, archives, and human disposition review are already documented. The remaining advantage is the untested combination of rhetorical dependency modeling and draft-retrieval evaluation.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"There is substantial collision with GOV.UK's treatment of speeches and press releases and with established content and records-management systems. Only the internal rhetorical-module scope, dependency treatment, and joint drafting/reconstruction outcome claim remain plausibly distinctive.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing platforms support the necessary metadata, approvals, versions, holds, expiration actions, archives, simulation, and audit trails. Semantic context and dependency classification still require human review and may not scale cleanly.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Official practice supports separated content-owner, editor, approver, records, and disposition-reviewer authority. Organization-specific ownership gaps and disputed rhetorical judgments remain adoption risks.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S7"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposed read-only sample and baseline comparison are feasible with existing lifecycle and retrieval primitives. Preregistration still must define stale-result exposure, sampling units, reviewer blinding, tolerances, and how to count dependencies and reconstruction failures.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S5","S6"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Preserving originals, separating active from historical access, restricting disposition authority, honoring holds, recording actions, and testing reconstruction are strongly aligned with official records-integrity and retention practices.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S5","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Commercial systems can apply labels and workflows at large scale, but context-sensitive rhetorical review, identity resolution, ownership, exception handling, and workflow monitoring create potentially substantial recurring labor.","source_ids":["S2","S5","S6","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Four-week, read-only study of 100 assets from one completed campaign: export and identity resolution, simulated lifecycle metadata, blinded reviewer labeling, baseline-versus-treated retrieval comparison, records/legal checks, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing repository export and search access are available.","No production labels, deletion, public changes, or custom enterprise integration occur.","Resource-equivalent labor includes an editorial owner, several reviewers, a records/legal check, and an analyst or search engineer.","Existing collaboration software is used; direct market pricing was not found."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Configure metadata, owner and approver roles, retrieval rules, version and preservation controls, audit events, limited repository integration, training, migration of an initial active collection, and evaluation instrumentation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One communications organization and a small number of repositories are in scope.","Existing content and records platforms supply most lifecycle primitives.","Human review handles rhetorical fitness, contested material, dependencies, and preservation exceptions.","The band includes labor, software configuration, compliance review, coordination, training, and evaluation but no repository replacement."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch across multiple campaigns or teams with repository connectors, identity resolution, migration, search integration, approval and escalation workflows, records and legal controls, user training, monitoring, restore tests, and controlled outcome evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Several editorial, technical, legal, and records teams must coordinate.","Historical material is triaged by class and risk rather than fully adjudicated item by item.","Existing enterprise repositories remain in place.","The range includes labor, software, data preparation, compliance, coordination, training, and evaluation."],"source_ids":["S2","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Owner review, stale-signal triage, disputed-case adjudication, hold and exception handling, workflow monitoring, archive and restore testing, user support, policy maintenance, and periodic outcome audits.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Most assets follow class-level policies, with human review reserved for ambiguous or high-risk cases.","Existing platform licensing covers basic versioning and retention; incremental workflow or connector costs may apply.","Review queues remain bounded and ownership is maintained.","The band includes all recurring labor, software, compliance, coordination, and evaluation resources."],"source_ids":["S2","S5","S6","S7"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official guidance directly recognizes obsolete content interfering with current search and treats inaccurate or outdated content as a trustworthiness risk; GOV.UK applies the mechanism to speeches, press releases, and policy material. Internal repository prevalence remains unknown but does not negate external support for the failure mode.","source_ids":["S1","S2"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Content owners, content managers, originating offices, GDS editors, approvers, records officers, and designated disposition reviewers are established roles with relevant authority.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S7"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"Despite substantial prior-art overlap, the candidate can compare dependency-aware lifecycle treatment of internal rhetorical modules against ordinary retrieval and a current-only handbook on stale exposure, correction time, missed-current assets, holds, and reconstruction.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A 100-asset, four-week, read-only simulation preserves production state and permits a controlled baseline comparison with explicit falsifiers.","source_ids":["S5"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The study makes no production changes or deletion. Preservation, role separation, holds, auditability, contextual integrity, and reviewer-controlled disposition are consistent with official guidance and product controls.","source_ids":["S3","S5","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The four ranges explicitly cover labor, software, data, integration, compliance, coordination, training, and evaluation. Existing documented platform primitives support the scope, although lack of organization-specific scale and direct prices keeps deployment estimates low-confidence.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Run a preregistered four-week, read-only crossover study on 100 deduplicated assets from one completed campaign plus a blinded sample of recent drafting tasks. Compare ordinary repository search and a current-only handbook with simulated lifecycle-state retrieval. Primary comparison: obsolete or context-mismatched assets appearing in the top retrieval set and reviewer correction minutes per task. Safety comparisons: missed-current assets, missed holds or dependencies, inter-reviewer agreement, and successful reconstruction of asset history. Falsify the incremental claim if the lifecycle condition fails to reduce either stale exposure or correction time, or if any predeclared missed-current, hold/dependency, or reconstruction tolerance is exceeded. Preserve all originals and do not alter production visibility.","blocking_evidence":["No direct evidence establishes how often internal talking points, claim sheets, rebuttals, examples, speech modules, or audience briefs are retrieved or reused after becoming obsolete or context-mismatched.","No causal evidence separates repository-layer accumulation from deliberate strategy, weak fact-checking, or other drafting-process failures.","Reviewer reliability for old-but-valid, new-but-invalid, contested, audience-specific, held, and dependency-linked rhetorical assets is unknown.","The incremental effect of dependency-aware lifecycle states beyond established withdrawal, history-mode, approval, retention, and archive practices has not been tested.","Organization-specific repository scale, integration complexity, reviewer capacity, label bypass, and recurring operating cost are unknown."],"research_disposition":"PILOT_OR_ADOPTION_INQUIRY","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded search found substantial, partly direct prior art in official public-content and records-management practice, including lifecycle treatment of speeches and press releases. It did not search every commercial product, organization, patent database, or scholarly literature corpus. The remaining rhetorical-module and outcome-evaluation claim is unverified and must not be described as world-novel."}