{"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":"Apply explicit validity, supersession, dependency, retention, archival, quarantine, and recovery controls to field-data layers so obsolete material is less likely to be used as current decision evidence while historically or legally valuable records remain recoverable. The candidate is technically coherent and safely testable, but problem prevalence, effect size, stakeholder demand, and distinctiveness remain externally unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"A precision-agriculture program or research-farm data steward would adopt the controls under an approved retention schedule; agronomic owners validate supersession, compliance or legal officers control holds, and designated custodians authorize irreversible destruction.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If stale yield, soil, scouting, imagery, or prescription layers influence seeding, fertilizer, irrigation, or crop-protection tasks, improving their status visibility could materially improve decision correctness and preserve research lineage. The frequency and realized effect size are unverified."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Farm operators, advisers, researchers, platform administrators, record owners, and regulators have plausible interests in current-layer clarity and recoverability, but the packet provides no observed demand, complaints, purchasing intent, or representative workflow evidence."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Compared with indefinite operational retention, the proposal adds governed status and bounded search; compared with a current-season-only catalog, it preserves differentiated historical value, dependencies, and restoration. Whether these controls improve outcomes enough to justify their overhead has not been tested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The lifecycle combination is specifically translated to agricultural layers, but prior art is explicitly unsearched. Existing precision-agriculture catalogs, geospatial lineage systems, records controls, or archival platforms may already implement substantially similar mechanisms."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Inventorying layers, attaching validity and supersession metadata, creating filtered duplicate-catalog views, checking dependencies, and testing restoration are technically bounded activities. Heterogeneous formats, missing lineage, credentials, and external dependencies could materially complicate implementation."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal identifies data stewards, agronomic owners, compliance or legal officers, and custodians with distinct authorities, and confines the first test to a consenting research farm. Multi-party approval and unclear record ownership could still slow adoption."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers, a reversible sandbox test, comparison outcomes, halt conditions, and relevant failure modes. Sampling, task definitions, acceptable false-deactivation limits, lineage checks, and restore tolerances still require predeclaration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"The proposal explicitly separates ranking from deletion authority, preserves sources, respects holds and uncertain dependencies, uses markers and quarantine, requires restore drills, excludes operational prescription changes, and provides a clear rollback path."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The governance pattern could apply across seasons, fields, and layer classes, but scaling depends on platform metadata support, inspectable dependencies, archive compatibility, local retention duties, and sustained agronomic ownership."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and execute a non-operational retrospective test on one consenting research farm using a sandboxed duplicate catalog covering two completed seasons and the current season.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing layer data can be exported or duplicated without major platform engineering.","The study includes inventory, task design, status labeling, baseline comparison, lineage checks, restore testing, participant time, and analysis.","No field operations, live prescriptions, hard deletion, or extensive legal dispute resolution are included."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Configure lifecycle metadata, roles, filtered views, retention rules, dependency checks, archive procedures, audit records, training, and recovery tests for one agricultural program or platform instance.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The organization has a usable catalog or geospatial data platform that can be extended.","Historical metadata and ownership are incomplete but not wholly absent.","Custom integration, policy review, security work, and migration are moderate rather than platform-wide."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch governed lifecycle operations across multiple farms, seasons, user roles, and major layer classes, including back-catalog triage, integrations, compliance coordination, training, and evaluated rollout.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment spans a multi-farm program rather than an entire commercial platform ecosystem.","Multiple data formats and external dependencies require engineering and manual adjudication.","The scope excludes replacement of core precision-agriculture systems and mass irreversible destruction."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain lifecycle reviews, stewardship, hold administration, dependency validation, archive integrity, access controls, restore drills, user support, monitoring, and periodic evaluation for a deployed program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Recurring work combines part-time stewardship, agronomic review, compliance participation, storage, software, and support.","Review volume remains manageable through automation and risk-based triage.","Major platform migrations or legal proceedings are excluded."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet describes a coherent observable failure mode and credible consequences, but supplies no external or representative evidence that stale-layer selection, catalog burden, or unsafe cleanup is materially present across target workflows."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies the agricultural data steward as the classifier and archiver, agronomic owners as supersession validators, compliance or legal officers as hold authorities, and designated custodians as destruction authorizers."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"Relative to filename-, folder-, date-, and memory-based selection, lifecycle labels and filtered views can be tested for reductions in stale-layer selection and task time while monitoring false deactivation, lineage breakage, and restore failure."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A duplicate catalog for one consenting research farm, limited to two completed seasons and the current season, permits a reversible comparison without changing sources, live prescriptions, or field operations."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step is non-operational and reversible, retains source data, excludes hard deletion, requires authorized access, and halts on missing lineage, incorrect labels, exposure, failed restoration, or unresolved holds."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Broad resource bands can be framed, but the packet does not specify layer counts, platform capabilities, metadata completeness, integration boundaries, retention regimes, or number of participating farms sufficiently to validate deployment cost and scope."}},"blocking_evidence":["Representative evidence that users encounter obsolete layers as current choices or experience material search, maintenance, reconstruction, or cleanup burden.","A prior-art comparison with precision-agriculture catalogs, geospatial lineage systems, records-retention controls, and archival-governance products.","Local confirmation that source ownership, dependencies, retention duties, holds, archive formats, coordinate systems, and credentials are inspectable enough to support lifecycle decisions.","Predeclared task sampling, false-deactivation tolerance, lineage criteria, restore-success criteria, and decision thresholds for the sandbox test.","Workflow evidence that agronomic owners, data stewards, compliance personnel, and custodians will accept and maintain the proposed responsibilities."],"next_evidence_step":"On one consenting research farm, predeclare representative layer classes, user tasks, and failure tolerances; duplicate two completed seasons plus the current season into a sandbox; then compare randomized or counterbalanced task performance under the existing filename/folder/date view versus lifecycle-labeled filtered views. Measure stale-layer selections, task time, false deactivations, lineage integrity, and restore success; falsify the intervention if benefits are absent or any safety measure exceeds its predeclared tolerance.","research_questions":["How often do obsolete or superseded layers remain selectable as current evidence, and in which agronomic tasks does this alter selection or effort?","Which lifecycle capabilities already exist in relevant precision-agriculture, geospatial lineage, records-management, and archival systems?","Can metadata reliably distinguish current-decision validity from historical scientific value across yield, soil, scouting, imagery, and prescription layers?","What dependencies, holds, ownership rules, privacy duties, and regulatory obligations constrain archival, compaction, quarantine, or destruction?","Do lifecycle labels and filtered views outperform the current baseline without unacceptable false deactivation, delayed access, broken lineage, or restore failure?","What platform integration and ongoing stewardship effort would be required at representative deployment scales?","Which layer classes or unusual seasons should remain visible because their longitudinal value increases rather than decays with age?"],"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["No external sources were consulted, so problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, and effect sizes are unknown.","Prior-art status is unsearched, preventing a supported novelty or competitive-distinctiveness claim.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based only on the described scope, not vendor quotes or local system inventories.","Technical feasibility may vary materially with metadata quality, platform extensibility, archive compatibility, credentials, and inspectability of dependencies.","The candidate does not define representative sampling or numerical error, lineage, and recovery tolerances.","The proposal must not be interpreted as authorization for live agronomic changes or irreversible deletion."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art was not searched and remains unverified in this closed-book assessment; no claim is made that the proposed lifecycle controls are novel, uncommon, or absent from existing precision-agriculture, geospatial, records-retention, or archival-governance systems."}