{"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__art_aesthetics","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"art_aesthetics","title":"Governed Lifecycle States for Versioned and Reinstalled Artworks","opportunity_summary":"Use reversible status overlays, authority rules, dependency checks, preservation tiers, restoration tests, and decision records to distinguish currently authorized artwork materials from preserved predecessors without presuming that older states have declining artistic value. The proposal is coherent and testable, but the sealed packet does not establish problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, comparative effectiveness, novelty, or institution-scale resource requirements.","adopter_authorizer":"A consenting institution's designated collections authority, with artist or estate consultation whenever agreements, rights, or artistic intent require it; automated tools may advise but may not authorize destruction.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Selecting a superseded state could misrepresent a work, consume staff time, or compromise reconstruction, so the potential consequences are meaningful. The packet provides no observed frequency, affected collection count, or measured burden, leaving realized impact uncertain."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Artists, estates, conservators, registrars, curators, and installers are identifiable affected parties, but the packet contains no expressed demand, reported incidents, procurement interest, or evidence that these parties prioritize a new lifecycle process over current documentation."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Relative to improved naming and conventional documentation, the proposal adds supersession relations, governed preservation tiers, holds, dependency checks, reversible disposition simulation, tombstones, and restoration tests. Whether these additions reduce selection errors or merely add administrative burden remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is domain-specific and structurally coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet itself identifies adjacent time-based media conservation, variable-media documentation, digital preservation, and collections-management practice. No incremental contribution over those practices is established."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A reversible overlay on 30 layers, simulated dispositions, blinded selection tasks, and restore drills are technically bounded and avoid alteration or deletion. Implementation becomes harder where identities, dependencies, obsolete formats, or preservation competence are incomplete."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The designated collections authority is named and artist or estate consultation is built in, supporting a legitimate decision path. Plural authenticity, rights agreements, loans, disputed intent, and cross-functional custody could still prevent canonical status decisions."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet supplies a conventional-documentation comparator, problem and intervention falsifiers, observable time and error outcomes, a reversible sample, and halt conditions. Task scoring, error taxonomy, tolerances, and measurement procedures still require preregistration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Unchanged originals, reversible labels, simulated dispositions, preservation holds, dependency checks, restore drills, tombstones, human destruction authority, and dispute-triggered halts substantially limit harm during testing. False authority labels and rights exposure remain possible."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Artwork-specific authority, heterogeneous formats, obsolete technology, manual provenance work, dependency tracing, and artist or estate consultation make transfer across collections labor-intensive. The packet offers no evidence that classifications or governance labels remain accurate at larger scale."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and execute a non-destructive study of 30 artwork-related layers in one consenting collection unit, including inventory, reversible status overlay, comparator task preparation, blinded task sessions, restore drills, rights review, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The collection grants access without major licensing fees.","The sample has manageable formats and approximately traceable identities.","Existing staff and systems can support the study without new preservation equipment.","No originals are deleted, migrated, or publicly presented differently."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Establish a production-ready workflow for one collection unit, including governance rules, metadata design, permissions, dependency mapping, preservation tiers, staff training, audit records, and integration with existing collections or file systems.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment reuses an existing repository or collections platform.","The unit contains substantially more than the 30-layer evidence sample but is not institution-wide.","Artist, estate, legal, and conservation review is required for disputed cases.","Substantial custom software development and mass format migration are excluded."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Extend the governed lifecycle process across multiple institutional collection units, including backlog review, workflow integration, training, rights-holder coordination, preservation validation, quality assurance, and launch evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The institution has existing digital preservation and collections-management infrastructure.","Rollout includes heterogeneous time-based or digital artworks and a material documentation backlog.","Human review remains mandatory for authority and disposition decisions.","The scope is a single institution rather than a multi-institution network."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain labels, review new and changed artwork states, monitor holds and dependencies, conduct periodic restore tests, coordinate disputed authority decisions, support storage, and audit governance records for one institution.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing platforms remain available under current licensing arrangements.","Recurring work is handled by a fractional cross-functional team rather than dedicated staff for every collection unit.","Storage growth and preservation-format interventions remain moderate.","No large emergency migration or legal dispute is included."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet describes an observable and falsifiable ambiguity problem, but supplies no collection observations showing that obsolete layers actually cause errors, reconstruction failures, or material workload."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The institution's designated collections authority is explicitly assigned decision authority, with artist or estate consultation required where agreements or artistic intent apply."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be compared with ordinary naming and collections documentation on blinded authorized-material selection time, selection errors, false stale flags, disputes, and reconstruction performance."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate specifies a reversible 30-layer sample, status overlay, simulated dispositions, blinded installation tasks, unchanged originals, restoration checks, and explicit halt conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed first step is non-destructive, requires a consenting unit and human authority, excludes public alteration and automatic deletion, respects holds, and halts on provenance uncertainty, rights-holder dispute, or restore failure."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate bounds the pilot scope but provides no staffing, system-integration, backlog, format-complexity, rights-review, storage, or recurring-maintenance data from which an implementation range could be validated."}},"blocking_evidence":["Observed baseline frequency and consequence of authority ambiguity in the consenting collection unit.","Baseline evidence that staff cannot already identify authorized states and reconstruct predecessors reliably.","Comparative task results showing improvement over ordinary documentation without excessive false stale flags or disputed canonicalization.","Successful restoration and dependency checks demonstrating that reconstruction capacity is not reduced.","Artist, estate, legal, conservation, and collections-authority acceptance of the proposed status semantics.","Prior-art evidence distinguishing the composition from established conservation, variable-media documentation, digital-preservation, and collections-management workflows.","Measured staff time, integration effort, storage needs, and maintenance burden sufficient to refine implementation costs."],"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register and run the proposed non-destructive study on 30 identity-linked layers from one consenting collection unit. Compare current documentation alone with the reversible lifecycle overlay on blinded installation-material selection tasks, measuring decision time, authority-selection errors, false stale flags, disputes, and predecessor reconstruction. Falsify progression if baseline performance is already reliable and low-burden, the overlay fails to improve time or errors, any restore drill fails, or disputed canonicalization exceeds predefined tolerances.","research_questions":["How often do staff encounter conflicting artwork states, and what errors, delays, or reconstruction risks result?","Which status categories can staff and relevant rights-holders apply reliably without erasing intentionally coequal or ambiguous states?","Does the lifecycle overlay outperform improved conventional documentation on blinded selection tasks?","What false-flag, dispute, and restore-failure thresholds would make the intervention unacceptable?","Can dependencies and provenance be traced sufficiently to support preservation tiers and reversible disposition decisions?","How quickly do governance labels become stale, and what review process prevents them from acquiring false authority?","Which components, if any, are distinct from existing conservation and digital-asset lifecycle practices?","What labor, platform integration, storage, rights review, and recurring governance resources are required beyond one collection unit?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book evidence does not establish prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, or institutional willingness to adopt.","Prior art and world novelty are unmeasured; no originality claim is supportable.","Comparative effectiveness and measurement reliability remain hypothetical.","Costs are resource-equivalent bands based on scoped assumptions, not observed quotations or implementation data.","Plural artwork authority may make a single current state inappropriate for some works.","Scalability depends on unknown collection heterogeneity, backlog size, rights complexity, dependency quality, and preservation infrastructure."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet identifies relevant neighboring practice categories but contains no search results or comparisons against specific systems, standards, institutions, publications, or workflows. Structural coherence and testability can be assessed; novelty, prevalence, adoption, and superiority over existing practice cannot."}