{"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__environmental_climate","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"environmental_climate","title":"Provenance-Gated Lifecycle Management for Climate Map Editions","opportunity_summary":"The candidate proposes explicit lifecycle states, lineage resolution, retention rules, dependency gates, archival, successor-aware tombstones, and restoration tests to keep superseded climate-map editions from appearing current without sacrificing reproducibility or required history. The occurrence and consequence of the stated stale-edition problem remain unverified hypotheses.","adopter_authorizer":"The designated climate-data custodian or portal operator would adopt the workflow under an approved retention schedule; records or legal authorities and an accountable owner must additionally authorize destruction.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Selecting a superseded climate-hazard or vulnerability layer could affect planning and scientific interpretation, while unsafe deletion could impair accountability and reproducibility. Impact could therefore be substantial, but the packet supplies no evidence about frequency, severity, or affected scale."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The packet identifies custodians, producers, planners, communities, and records stakeholders, but provides no complaints, observed selection errors, maintenance measurements, procurement intent, or expressed demand from them."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the stated badge-and-ranking rival, the proposal adds lineage resolution, retention and hold logic, dependency checks, reversible quarantine, tombstones, and restoration testing. Those additions address deletion safety and recoverability, although their incremental effect has not been tested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The particular mechanism composition is coherently specified, but prior-art status is explicitly unsearched and lifecycle states, retention controls, archival, and restoration are individually general mechanisms. Closed-book evidence cannot establish that their climate-portal composition is distinctive."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A read-only inventory, proposed classifications, dependency tracing, and sampled restore test are technically bounded and require no live portal changes. Ambiguous lineage, external dependencies, archive condition, and heterogeneous metadata could still make production implementation difficult."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal names the climate-data custodian as lifecycle authority and requires records or legal clearance plus owner review for destruction. Feasibility is favorable, but actual retention schedules, ownership, and clearance availability are not supplied."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet supplies separate problem and intervention falsifiers, a read-only shadow-pilot scope, a named comparator, and halt conditions. Readiness is limited by the absence of fixed sampling, selection metrics, dependency-coverage methods, false-stale tolerances, and restore targets."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Holds, dependency gates, quarantine, successor-aware tombstones, restoration tests, and rollback preserve recoverability while reducing current-search ambiguity. Residual risks include missed external citations, false authority labels, archival latency, and improper loss of minority or historical evidence."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The lifecycle pattern could be repeated across map families and portals, but lineage conventions, archives, legal schedules, dependencies, and definitions of scientific distinctness are likely locally heterogeneous. No evidence demonstrates low marginal effort across additional collections."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"A preregistered, read-only audit and shadow pilot for one map family in one portal, including edition inventory, lineage review, dependency tracing, sampled archive restoration, and a blinded comparison against badge-and-ranking alone.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One portal and one reasonably bounded map family are included.","Custodian staff, metadata, logs, and archive access are available without new procurement.","The user-selection comparison uses a modest recruited or internal participant sample.","No production metadata, search ranking, public status, or deletion changes occur."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Design and implement a production-ready lifecycle model for one portal, including metadata normalization, lineage tooling, retention and hold workflows, archive integration, dependency checks, governance review, and acceptance testing.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing portal and archive systems expose usable integration points.","The initial scope excludes wholesale remediation of every historical layer.","Records, legal, scientific, and community-accountability reviews can use existing organizational processes.","No major replacement of the geospatial catalog or archive platform is required."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch the lifecycle workflow across the initial operational collection, including migration and classification, quality assurance, user-facing status and tombstones, training, communications, monitoring, and restore drills.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains within one organization and portal.","Most layers can be classified without extensive manual scientific adjudication.","Archive capacity is adequate or requires only incremental expansion.","Potential deletions remain quarantined until all required approvals are complete."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing metadata stewardship, new-edition classification, dependency and hold review, archive storage, restoration testing, portal maintenance, exception handling, compliance review, and outcome monitoring for the initial portal.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Edition volume and archive growth are moderate.","Existing custodial and infrastructure teams absorb part of the recurring work.","No unusually large preservation migration or litigation-driven review occurs.","The estimate covers the initial portal rather than a national or multi-institution network."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet gives a concrete, observable, and falsifiable account of stale climate-map editions, but labels it a hypothesis and supplies no external observations showing superseded layers are presented as current or cause errors or material burden."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Climate-data custodians and portal operators are identifiable adopters, while the designated custodian, accountable owner, and records or legal authorities have specified lifecycle and destruction roles."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate can be compared with badge-and-ranking alone on blinded authoritative-edition selection, dependency coverage, false-stale classifications, and successful sampled restoration."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a read-only shadow pilot on one map family in one portal, prohibits public-status and deletion changes, and provides explicit halt conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is read-only, and the proposal blocks removal when lineage, dependencies, holds, restoration, or clearance are unresolved. Production destruction nevertheless remains conditional on records or legal clearance and owner review."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The mechanism components and initial portal scope are identifiable, but layer counts, metadata quality, archive capacity, integration interfaces, dependency complexity, and compliance workload are absent, making even broad implementation bands low-confidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["A scoped audit showing whether any superseded edition is presented or selected as current and whether the active stack creates consequential maintenance or ownership burden.","A preregistered comparison showing whether the proposed lifecycle classifications improve authoritative-edition selection or dependency coverage beyond badge-and-ranking alone.","Measured false-stale rates and expert adjudication of scientifically distinct or contested editions.","Successful sampled restoration with predefined completeness, integrity, and latency criteria.","Confirmation of applicable retention schedules, preservation holds, destruction requirements, and accountable decision owners.","Bounded prior-art research establishing whether equivalent climate-portal or geospatial lifecycle practices already exist."],"next_evidence_step":"With custodian authorization, preregister and run a read-only study on one map family in one portal: audit whether superseded editions are exposed or selected as current, inventory lineage and dependencies, restore-test a predefined archive sample, and compare blinded authoritative-edition selection under proposed lifecycle states versus badge-and-ranking alone. Reject or pause the candidate if the problem falsifier holds, selection or dependency coverage does not improve, false-stale flags exceed the predefined tolerance, or any sampled restore fails.","research_questions":["Does the scoped map family contain superseded editions that users can reasonably mistake for authoritative current evidence?","How often and with what consequence do users select the wrong edition under the existing interface?","Does the lifecycle-state composition outperform badge-and-ranking alone on authoritative-edition selection and dependency coverage?","What false-stale tolerance is acceptable, and which scientific disagreements require human adjudication?","Can retained editions be restored completely, accurately, and within an acceptable time?","Which external downloads, citations, holds, and legal obligations are invisible to portal-level dependency scans?","Do equivalent lifecycle and restoration practices already exist in climate-data or geospatial portals?","What portal, archive, and staffing characteristics drive implementation and recurring resource requirements?","How will local, minority, contested, or historically important editions be protected from inappropriate demotion or destruction?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["The problem's prevalence, frequency, and consequence are unsupported hypotheses.","No stakeholder demand, adoption commitment, or observed selection error is supplied.","Prior art and world-level distinctiveness are unmeasured.","Incremental advantage over badge-and-ranking is testable but unobserved.","Layer volume, metadata condition, archive capacity, integration complexity, and legal workload are unspecified.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not estimates based on measured deployment inputs.","A successful sample would not establish that every archived edition is recoverable or that the approach scales across portals."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet supports structural coherence, a specific comparator, and bounded falsification, but contains no prior-art search. It cannot establish novelty, prevalence, market size, realized impact, existing practice, or the absence of equivalent geospatial catalog, records-retention, archival, or restoration systems."}