{"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__aviation_aeronautics","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"aviation_aeronautics","title":"Explicit Lifecycle States for Flight-Operations Documents","opportunity_summary":"Test whether identity-resolved lifecycle states, dependency and retention gates, search demotion, quarantine, and restoration checks can reduce retrieval of superseded flight-operations documents while preserving lineage and historical reconstruction. The sealed candidate supports a bounded shadow test, but does not establish problem prevalence, adoption demand, effectiveness, or distinctiveness from existing aviation practice.","adopter_authorizer":"The adopting organization is an aircraft operator's flight-operations document-control function. Its designated flight-operations document authority approves status and disposition, safety, compliance, and investigation owners control holds, and EFB or avionics administrators enable repository and offline-device implementation.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Wrong-version retrieval could affect operational decisions, while loss of retained versions could impair investigation and reconstruction. These are consequential objectives, but the packet provides no evidence about how often either failure occurs."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal identifies affected crews, dispatchers, document-control staff, reviewers, and administrators, but contains no interviews, requests, incident evidence, purchasing signal, or other demonstration that these stakeholders currently seek the proposed composition."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the stated baseline and latest-version-only rival, explicit retained-version states, dependency and hold gates, search demotion, quarantine, and tested restoration provide a clear additional mechanism for balancing retrieval safety with traceability. The magnitude of improvement remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The integration of authority states, gated disposition, retrieval behavior, and restoration testing is coherent, but every originality conclusion is expressly bounded by unsearched aviation document-control and EFB prior art."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A read-only test view and inventory appear technically bounded, but success depends on identity resolution across repositories and offline devices, reliable applicability metadata, dependency discovery, archive readability, and integration with existing search and synchronization systems."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate assigns disposition authority and separately preserves safety, compliance, and investigation holds. Feasibility is reduced by the need for agreement among document owners, reviewers, and EFB or avionics administrators."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet specifies observable state, baseline and rival comparisons, adverse outcomes, problem and intervention falsifiers, and a read-only shadow test. Sampling, tolerances, adjudication, device strata, and metadata-trust criteria still require preregistration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Quarantine, retention holds, dependency checks, successor markers, archival restoration tests, explicit exclusions, and shutdown conditions directly protect against premature suppression or destruction. Residual risks include incomplete dependencies, unreadable archives, and stale metadata."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The mechanism could be repeated across document families, but heterogeneous repositories, authority rules, offline devices, applicability logic, and retention obligations may require substantial family-specific integration and adjudication."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Preregister and execute a read-only shadow inventory and retrieval comparison for one non-emergency document family, including central and sampled offline copies, authority adjudication, dependency checks, restore testing, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The operator grants controlled access to repository indexes and a bounded sample of offline-device state.","Existing systems can export metadata without production modification.","The work requires document-control, safety or compliance, EFB administration, data analysis, and evaluation labor.","No live operational content, retention rule, or device copy is changed."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Design and implement a limited production capability for selected document families, including lifecycle metadata, authority workflow, search behavior, hold and dependency gates, archival integration, audit logs, and restore validation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The operator has usable document identifiers and integration interfaces.","The initial deployment covers one operator and a limited set of repositories and device types.","The estimate includes engineering, security review, compliance coordination, testing, training, and change management.","Major replacement of the document-management or EFB platform is excluded."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Launch across the operator's material flight-operations document families and supported offline-device estate, with migration, synchronization controls, workflow integration, validation, training, monitoring, and operational support.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Multiple document families and device configurations require migration and validation.","Safety, compliance, investigation, document-owner, and technology teams participate in acceptance.","Existing repository and EFB platforms remain in place and can be integrated.","A multinational, multi-airline, or full platform-replacement rollout is outside this scope."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Operate lifecycle governance, reconciliation, hold administration, dependency review, metadata quality monitoring, archive maintenance, restore drills, user support, software maintenance, and periodic effectiveness evaluation for one operator.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Recurring work includes both technical support and expert document-authority review.","Device and repository integrations require continuing maintenance.","Restore and metadata-quality tests are performed periodically.","Material platform licensing changes or rapid fleet expansion could move costs outside the band."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The failure mode and consequences are concrete and falsifiable, but the sealed packet supplies no representative audit, incident evidence, or external support showing that superseded versions are actually exposed under current controls."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet identifies the operator's designated flight-operations document authority as disposition approver, hold owners as constraint authorities, and document-control and EFB or avionics teams as implementers."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be compared with ordinary retrieval or a latest-version-only portal on wrong-version selection, retrieval delay, unresolved references, reviewer workload, and restoration success."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A read-only shadow test on one non-emergency document family is bounded, excludes production visibility and deletion changes, and includes explicit problem and intervention falsifiers."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is non-operative, preserves authoritative content and copies, respects holds, assigns decision authority, and halts on identity, dependency, successor, or owner-dispute failures."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate identifies required functions and actors, allowing broad resource bands, but repository count, device diversity, interfaces, document volume, retention regimes, and certification or compliance workload are unspecified."}},"blocking_evidence":["A representative bounded audit showing whether ordinary searches or offline devices expose superseded versions and whether existing reconstruction controls already solve the stated problem.","A prior-art and current-practice comparison covering aviation document authority, EFB synchronization, retained-version states, archival restoration, dependency controls, and investigation holds.","Evidence that authoritative identities and applicability can be resolved reliably across central and offline copies.","A preregistered shadow comparison demonstrating lower wrong-version selection without unacceptable retrieval delay, unresolved references, reviewer burden, or reconstruction failure.","Adopter inquiry confirming that the control gap is important enough to justify cross-functional implementation and recurring governance."],"next_evidence_step":"Preregister and run the authorized read-only shadow test on one non-emergency document family: sample ordinary repository searches and offline-device retrieval tasks, compare them with the lifecycle-labeled test view, and have the designated authority adjudicate correct versions. Measure wrong-version selection, retrieval delay, unresolved references, reviewer workload, metadata disagreements, and restore success. Falsify the problem if baseline controls expose no superseded artifact as current and already support reconstruction; reject the intervention if labels do not reduce wrong-version selection or breach predeclared adverse-outcome tolerances.","research_questions":["Do representative repository searches and offline devices expose any superseded artifact as current or ambiguously authoritative?","How do existing aviation document-control and EFB practices differ from the proposed lifecycle-state, dependency-gate, quarantine, and restoration composition?","Can document identity, applicability, successor relationships, dependencies, and holds be resolved with sufficient reliability to govern retrieval or disposition?","Does lifecycle-labeled retrieval reduce wrong-version selection relative to ordinary retrieval and the latest-version-only rival without increasing delay or unresolved references beyond tolerance?","Can archived versions be restored and interpreted with current tools for reconstruction, and how often should restoration be tested?","Will the designated authority and affected hold owners accept the added workflow and recurring review burden?","Which repository, device, interface, compliance, and staffing characteristics dominate implementation and recurring cost?"] ,"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Problem prevalence and realized safety impact are unsupported hypotheses.","Stakeholder demand and willingness to adopt have not been tested.","World novelty and the gap from current aviation practice are unmeasured.","Effect size, retrieval-time tradeoffs, metadata reliability, and reviewer workload are unknown.","Deployment cost depends on unspecified repository, device, interface, document-volume, and regulatory complexity.","Scaling from one non-emergency document family to operationally critical families is unproven."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No conclusion is made about novelty, prevalence, market size, realized impact, or existing aviation document-control and EFB capabilities. The assessment treats the proposed composition as unsearched and recommends external prior-art research before any distinctiveness claim."}