{"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 Time-Based Artworks","opportunity_summary":"Evaluate a reversible governance overlay that identifies artwork-related layers, records authority and supersession relationships, bounds the active working set, preserves reconstructable predecessors, and prevents unauthorized destruction. The proposal addresses consequential installation and provenance risks, but problem prevalence, comparative effectiveness, distinctiveness from established practice, and institution-level implementation burden remain unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"A collecting institution's designated collections authority, with conservators, registrars, and curators implementing the workflow and artist or estate consultation where agreements, rights, or artistic intent require it.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Selecting a superseded artwork state can misrepresent the work, while indiscriminate cleanup can permanently impair provenance or reconstruction. These are meaningful consequences for affected works, although their prevalence and aggregate impact are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies staff reconciliation burden and risks to artists, estates, institutions, and viewers, but supplies no evidence that these stakeholders currently prioritize or would adopt a lifecycle-governance intervention."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Relative to naming and documenting every layer as equally active, explicit supersession, authority, dependency, preservation-tier, and restoration records could reduce selection ambiguity. The size and consistency of that advantage are untested, and ordinary documentation may perform equally well."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The combination of governed operational prominence, reversible tiering, holds, dependency checks, restore tests, and tombstones is a coherent art-specific composition. However, prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness from conservation, digital-preservation, and collections-management workflows is unverified."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A 30-layer inventory, reversible metadata overlay, simulated dispositions, blinded tasks, and restore drills are technically feasible without deleting originals. Implementation becomes harder when identities, dependencies, formats, or authentic states are ambiguous."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal identifies a designated institutional authority, preserves artist or estate consultation, prohibits automated destruction, and provides halt and rollback rules. Feasibility may fall where authority is plural, agreements are unclear, or rights-holders dispute canonicalization."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate provides a bounded sample, ordinary-documentation comparator, blinded installation tasks, measurable time and error outcomes, restoration checks, and explicit falsifiers. Error taxonomy, scoring reliability, tolerances, and halt thresholds still require preregistration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Reversible labels, unchanged originals, holds, human authorization, dependency checks, tombstones, restore drills, and rollback directly reduce risks of mistaken presentation and irreversible loss. False authority labels and suppression of meaningful ambiguity remain material counter-risks."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The lifecycle structure could be reused across collection units, but artwork-specific intent, heterogeneous formats, obsolete technologies, rights constraints, and plural authentic states limit standardization and may require substantial expert review."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and conduct the reversible 30-layer study for one consenting collection unit, including inventory, overlay labeling, comparator tasks, blinded scoring, simulated dispositions, restore checks, and analysis.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Originals remain unchanged and no live exhibition is altered.","Existing institutional staff and storage systems can support the study.","The sample does not require extensive format migration, legal review, or outside technical reconstruction.","The band includes staff time, protocol design, coordination, evaluation, and limited rights review."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Convert a favorable study into a governed workflow for one collection program, including policy design, metadata configuration, authority mapping, staff training, dependency documentation, preservation controls, and quality assurance.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment uses or lightly extends existing collections and storage systems.","The initial program contains a manageable number of complex artworks.","No major digitization, bespoke repository replacement, or large-scale hardware acquisition is required.","Artist, estate, legal, and conservation consultation is needed for a subset of works."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch the workflow across a medium-sized institution's relevant versioned, digital, time-based, or repeatedly reinstalled holdings, including backlog review, integrations, governance, restoration testing, and rollout support.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Institution-wide launch involves heterogeneous records and multiple departments.","Some specialist conservation, rights, security, and software work is required.","The estimate excludes a wholesale digital-asset or collections-management platform replacement.","Ambiguous or technically obsolete works receive manual expert review."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain authority labels, review new and changed layers, manage holds and disputes, test restoration, audit stale governance records, train staff, and support software and preservation storage.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The institution incorporates much of the work into existing collections operations.","Review volume is moderate and only a subset of works requires specialist escalation.","Recurring cost does not include major format-rescue projects or repository replacement.","Storage growth remains manageable because preservation tiers bound operational prominence rather than mandate deletion."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate specifies inspectable conditions—conflicting identity-linked files and instructions, incomplete authority and supersession data, repeated reconciliation, selection errors, and reconstruction risk. External evidence is still needed to establish frequency and severity."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The institution's designated collections authority is explicitly assigned decision authority, with artist or estate consultation where intent, rights, or agreements require it."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that lifecycle labeling and governed tiering will reduce time and errors in selecting authorized materials versus ordinary documentation while preserving restoration capacity; the candidate supplies intervention falsifiers."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a reversible study of 30 layers in one consenting collection unit, with simulated dispositions, unchanged originals, blinded installation tasks, and a conventional-documentation comparison."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step avoids deletion and public alteration, retains originals, requires human authority and applicable rights-holder consultation, and halts for disputed authority, inadequate provenance or dependencies, or failed restoration."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate bounds the first study and identifies relevant activities, but supplies no labor, system, backlog, rights-review, storage, or integration evidence from which implementation resource requirements can be validated; the broad bands remain assumption-dependent."}},"blocking_evidence":["Prior art is unsearched, leaving the proposal's distinctiveness from time-based media conservation, variable-media documentation, digital preservation, and collections-management practice unverified.","No evidence establishes how often obsolete layers cause installation or interpretation errors, reconstruction failures, or material staff burden.","Comparative evidence is absent on whether the overlay improves authority-resolution time or error rates relative to ordinary documentation.","The task-scoring method, error taxonomy, false-stale tolerance, restoration standard, and halt thresholds are not yet specified.","The feasibility of resolving authority, rights, dependencies, and preservation requirements across heterogeneous artworks is unverified.","Implementation resource requirements are unsupported by observed staff time, backlog complexity, system integration needs, or specialist-review rates."],"next_evidence_step":"Preregister and conduct the authorized non-destructive study on 30 artwork-related layers from one consenting collection unit: randomly assign blinded installation-selection tasks to the proposed reversible lifecycle overlay or an ordinary-documentation comparator; measure decision time, predefined authority-selection errors, false stale flags, disputes, and restore success. Falsify progression if the overlay fails to improve time or errors by the preregistered threshold, exceeds false-flag or dispute tolerances, or any predecessor cannot be restored from unchanged originals.","research_questions":["How frequently do staff encounter conflicting artwork states, and how often does ambiguity produce errors or material preparation burden?","Which lifecycle, conservation, digital-preservation, and collections-management practices already implement the proposed mechanisms?","Can independent reviewers reliably classify current, superseded, coequal, duplicate, orphaned, held, and preserved states?","Does the overlay outperform ordinary documentation on blinded authority-selection tasks without suppressing intentionally plural or ambiguous states?","What false-stale, dispute, and restore-failure thresholds are acceptable to artists, estates, conservators, registrars, and curators?","Which artwork types have dependencies or obsolete technologies that make reliable reconstruction impractical?","How often must authority labels be reviewed to avoid acquiring stale or false authority?","What staff time, specialist input, system integration, storage, compliance, and rights-review resources are required per collection unit?"] ,"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment only; no external evidence was consulted.","Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, effect size, and adoption rates are unmeasured.","The candidate is a hypothesis and provides no field-performance evidence.","Artwork authority may be plural, intentionally ambiguous, or change over time.","Broad cost bands are resource-equivalent scenarios, not observed or quoted costs.","No novelty claim can be supported until relevant practices and prior art are investigated."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched and unverified in this closed-book assessment; therefore no claim is made that the lifecycle-governance composition is novel, uncommon, or distinct from existing conservation, variable-media, digital-preservation, or collections-management practice."}