{"schema_version":1,"assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","source_experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__agricultural_science","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"agricultural_science","title":"Governed lifecycle management for precision-agriculture decision layers","opportunity_summary":"The candidate would add validity, supersession, dependency, retention, archival, and recovery controls to field-data catalogs so obsolete layers do not masquerade as current while historically valuable records remain reconstructable. The mechanism and reversible test are well specified, but the prevalence of stale-layer harm, adopter demand, incremental advantage over existing platform controls, and prior art are unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"A precision-agriculture platform operator, research-farm data program, or large farm organization could adopt it; an agricultural data steward would administer lifecycle states under schedules approved by agronomic owners, compliance or legal officers, and designated custodians controlling irreversible destruction.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If stale yield, scouting, imagery, or prescription layers influence current seeding, fertilizer, irrigation, or crop-protection tasks, preventing that confusion while preserving lineage could materially improve decision correctness and reproducibility. The score is limited because prevalence and effect size are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Farm operators, advisers, researchers, administrators, record owners, and compliance personnel have plausible interests in clearer catalogs and recoverable records, but the sealed candidate provides no evidence of expressed demand, current burden, budget ownership, or willingness to change workflows."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to indefinite operational retention, the proposal reduces active search space; relative to the current-season-only rival, it preserves explicit historical meaning, dependencies, holds, and restore capability. Whether these gains outperform existing controls or justify added governance remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The domain transfer combines lifecycle labels, filtered views, retention rules, dependency gates, archives, and restore drills coherently, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and these mechanisms may already exist in geospatial catalogs, records governance, or precision-agriculture platforms."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A duplicate catalog with metadata labels and filtered views appears technically feasible without changing source data or field operations. Production implementation is constrained by potentially missing lineage, opaque dependencies, incompatible formats, credentials, and retention metadata."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate identifies a workable division of authority among data stewards, agronomic owners, compliance or legal officers, and custodians, with consent and explicit restrictions. Feasibility may fall where these roles are fragmented across farms, vendors, researchers, and landowners."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposed one-farm sandbox covers two completed seasons and the current season, preserves sources, specifies baseline task comparisons, and names intervention failures. Sampling, numerical tolerances, and representative task definitions still need predeclaration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Holds, dependency gates, non-destructive deactivation, supersession markers, source preservation, rollback, and restore drills directly protect against both stale use and unsafe cleanup. The authorized first step excludes operational prescriptions and irreversible deletion."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Lifecycle states and filtered catalog views could generalize across farms and layer classes, but heterogeneous platforms, schemas, coordinate systems, ownership arrangements, retention duties, and agronomic meanings may require substantial local mapping and governance."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and execute the sandboxed duplicate-catalog study on one consenting research farm using two completed seasons and the current season, including inventory, task comparisons, lineage checks, restore drill, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing datasets and authorized users are available without major acquisition fees.","No live prescriptions, field operations, or source records are changed.","The study uses a limited set of representative layer classes and user tasks.","The band includes agronomist, data-steward, geospatial, protocol, privacy, and evaluation labor."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Configure lifecycle metadata, roles, retention and hold workflows, dependency checks, filtered views, archive interfaces, audit records, and training for one organization or platform environment.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The existing catalog exposes usable APIs or administrative extension points.","Most source layers can remain in current storage rather than be migrated.","Legal and compliance review is organization-specific but not unusually complex.","Custom lineage reconstruction is limited rather than required for every historical layer."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Move from a sandbox to governed production use across multiple farms, seasons, user roles, and major layer classes, with integrations, validation, security review, recovery testing, documentation, and change management.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch covers one program or regional organization rather than an industry-wide service.","No autonomous deletion or agronomic prescription changes are introduced.","Several catalog, storage, and identity integrations require engineering work.","Historical metadata gaps require targeted remediation and quarantine rather than complete reconstruction."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate lifecycle reviews, steward exceptions and holds, maintain integrations and archives, conduct restore drills, monitor classification errors, support users, and update schedules.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The deployment remains within one organization or bounded platform program.","Human review remains necessary for contested supersession and destruction decisions.","Storage savings, if any, are not credited against the resource band.","Major archive-format migration or widespread lineage repair is excluded."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate presents a coherent observable failure mode and explicit falsifier, but supplies no representative evidence that obsolete layers are commonly selectable or materially cause errors, search burden, maintenance burden, or unsafe-cleanup delay."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Precision-agriculture platform operators, research-farm programs, or large farm organizations are identifiable adopters, and the proposal assigns classification, supersession, hold, and destruction authority to specified roles."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims lifecycle labels and filtered views will reduce stale-layer selection and task time relative to the filename-, folder-, date-, and memory-based baseline without increasing false deactivation, lineage failure, or restore failure beyond predeclared tolerances."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A sandboxed duplicate catalog on one consenting research farm, covering three seasons and predefined decision tasks, can compare baseline and lifecycle-controlled views without deletion or operational changes."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step preserves source data, excludes live prescriptions and hard deletion, requires consent and role-based authority, and mandates halt and rollback for missing lineage, incorrect labels, unauthorized exposure, failed restore, or unresolved holds."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate separates a bounded sandbox from production deployment, allowing broad resource bands to be scoped for evidence, startup, launch, and recurring governance, although platform-specific integration and remediation costs remain low-confidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["A representative audit establishing how often obsolete layers remain selectable and whether they materially affect decisions, task time, maintenance, storage, or cleanup delay.","A prior-art comparison against existing precision-agriculture catalogs, geospatial lineage systems, records-retention controls, and archival-governance products.","Evidence that lifecycle metadata can reliably separate current-decision validity from historical scientific value across representative layer classes.","Inspection of dependency, ownership, hold, archive, credential, and restore information sufficient to support safe lifecycle decisions.","Predeclared task sampling, false-deactivation limits, lineage criteria, restore-success criteria, and acceptable time or selection improvements.","Adopter and authorizer evidence concerning workflow fit, responsibility allocation, integration access, and willingness to fund ongoing stewardship."],"next_evidence_step":"On one consenting research farm, predeclare representative layer classes, user tasks, error tolerances, lineage checks, and restore criteria; build a duplicate catalog for two completed seasons plus the current season; then run a counterbalanced comparison of the existing catalog view against lifecycle labels and filtered views. Do not alter sources or operations. Falsify the intervention if it does not reduce stale-layer selections or task time, or if false deactivations, broken lineage, unauthorized exposure, or restore failures exceed the predeclared limits.","research_questions":["How frequently are superseded or validity-uncertain layers exposed as current across representative farms, platforms, seasons, and workflows?","Which existing products or standards already provide season, version, supersession, lineage, retention, hold, archive, and restore controls, and what incremental mechanism remains?","Which metadata signals can distinguish current-decision validity from continuing historical, scientific, contractual, or regulatory value?","Can dependencies among source layers, derived classifications, and prescriptions be inspected reliably enough to support deactivation or archival decisions?","Do labeled and filtered views reduce stale selections and task time relative to the baseline without delaying access during time-sensitive events?","What false-deactivation, lineage, and recovery tolerances are acceptable to agronomic owners, researchers, compliance officers, and custodians?","Which organization can own continuing stewardship when data, platform administration, agronomic authority, land ownership, and retention duties are split?","How do archive formats, coordinate systems, access credentials, privacy duties, and destruction obligations affect long-term recoverability?","What startup and recurring workload is required per farm, platform, season, and layer class after local integration requirements are known?"],"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no evidence of problem prevalence, realized impact, stakeholder demand, market size, or budget availability.","Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty and product-level distinctiveness cannot be credited.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on stated scope, not observed vendor pricing or implementation data.","Technical feasibility depends on platform access, metadata quality, lineage visibility, archive compatibility, and retention information not demonstrated in the packet.","The one-farm test may establish local task effects but cannot by itself establish cross-farm or cross-platform scalability.","Historical layers may gain value rather than decay, so age cannot serve as a standalone lifecycle rule.","Production benefit and safety depend on predeclared tolerances and continued human authority over supersession, holds, and irreversible destruction."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No claim is made that the proposed lifecycle-governance bundle is novel, rare, absent from current precision-agriculture systems, or superior to existing geospatial catalog, data-lineage, records-retention, archival, or platform-governance capabilities. Distinctiveness remains unresolved until external prior-art research is performed."}