{"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":"Evaluate a lifecycle system that inventories climate-map editions, resolves lineage, distinguishes current, superseded, archived, and held states, gates deletion on dependencies and retention obligations, and verifies restoration. The proposal could reduce selection of obsolete evidence while preserving reproducibility, but the sealed candidate does not establish problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, comparative effect, or novelty.","adopter_authorizer":"The likely adopter is a climate-data custodian or planning-portal operator. The designated custodian can authorize lifecycle-state changes under an approved retention schedule; destruction additionally requires records or legal clearance and accountable owner review.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If superseded layers are mistaken for current evidence, the affected planning, scientific interpretation, citation stability, and public accountability could be consequential. The score is not 5 because the sealed candidate supplies no evidence of prevalence, frequency, or realized harm."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal names custodians, producers, planners, communities, and records stakeholders, but contains no documented requests, complaints, commitments, adoption inquiry, or demonstrated willingness to change portal operations."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to badge-and-ranking alone, the composition adds lineage resolution, class-specific retention, preservation holds, dependency and reconstruction gates, successor-aware tombstones, quarantine, and restore testing. Whether these additions improve user selection or operational outcomes remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The integrated composition is specific and plausibly differentiable from its stated presentation-only rival, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and equivalent climate-data, geospatial-catalog, records-retention, or archival practices may already exist."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Inventorying metadata, inferring lineage, assigning proposed states, scanning dependencies, archiving, and conducting sampled restore tests are technically bounded activities using identifiable digital objects. Ambiguous lineage, external citations, heterogeneous metadata, and archive reliability prevent a top score."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal identifies a designated custodian for lifecycle states and adds records or legal clearance plus owner review for destruction. Feasibility remains short of 5 because actual schedules, ownership, holds, and cross-organizational dependencies are not verified."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate specifies a read-only shadow pilot, a presentation-only comparison, problem and intervention falsifiers, halt conditions, and restoration sampling. Acceptance thresholds, sampling frame, authoritative-edition ground truth, and dependency-coverage method still require predefinition."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"The design directly protects against irreversible loss through holds, dependency checks, reconstruction checks, archives, quarantine, successor-aware tombstones, sampled restore testing, explicit exclusions, and rollback to the unchanged portal state during the first step."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The lifecycle pattern could extend across map families and portals, but differing metadata, scientific semantics, retention duties, external dependencies, archive systems, and contested definitions of authority may require substantial local adaptation."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A read-only audit and shadow pilot for one map family in one portal, including edition inventory, lineage review, dependency tracing, proposed lifecycle states, sampled restoration, predeclared metrics, and a blinded comparison against badge-and-ranking alone.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The map family and portal are already accessible to the participating custodian.","Existing metadata and archives permit a bounded sample without new infrastructure procurement.","The comparison uses a limited group of representative users and does not change public status or delete data.","Labor, evaluation, partner coordination, and records consultation are included."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Configure and validate a production-capable lifecycle workflow for one portal, including metadata-state definitions, lineage reconciliation, policy mapping, hold handling, dependency checks, archive integration, tombstones, audit logging, training, and security or compliance review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The portal exposes usable interfaces or can accept modest extensions.","A compatible archival repository already exists.","Initial scope covers a limited number of map families rather than an enterprise-wide catalog.","No major remediation of corrupt archives or undocumented ownership is required."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch governed lifecycle operations across a substantial portal catalog, including catalog cleanup, integration hardening, user communications, records and legal approval paths, monitoring, restore exercises, exception handling, and comparative outcome evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch remains within one organization or closely coordinated portal program.","Scientific review is required for contested editions and cannot be fully automated.","Historical layers are preserved where required rather than bulk migrated or destroyed.","Material metadata normalization and partner coordination are needed, but no replacement of the entire portal is required."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing stewardship for policy updates, new-edition intake, lineage and dependency review, preservation holds, archive storage, restore testing, exception adjudication, monitoring, support, and periodic evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The service covers one established portal program with a moderate flow of new editions.","Recurring work includes scientific, technical, records, and compliance labor.","Archive volume and retrieval charges remain within ordinary institutional infrastructure.","Complex legal disputes or large-scale archive reconstruction are excluded."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet describes an observable and falsifiable stale-edition problem, but labels it a hypothesis and provides no external audit, prevalence evidence, documented selection errors, or measured maintenance burden."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Climate-data custodians and portal operators are identified as adopters; the designated custodian may change lifecycle state, while destruction requires records or legal clearance and accountable owner review."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that provenance-gated lifecycle management adds value beyond a current-version badge and improved ranking, testable through authoritative-edition selection, dependency coverage, false-stale flags, and sampled restore outcomes."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A read-only shadow pilot is bounded to one map family and one portal, preserves the existing portal state, makes no public-status or deletion changes, and includes explicit comparison and failure conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized first step is non-mutating; ambiguous lineage, dependencies, holds, excessive false-stale classifications, or failed restores trigger a halt. Destruction is excluded from the pilot and separately requires clearance and review."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"A bounded one-family evidence exercise and progressively broader startup, launch, and recurring scopes can be assigned broad resource-equivalent bands, although actual costs remain uncertain because portal condition, archive quality, catalog size, and compliance requirements are unknown."}},"blocking_evidence":["No scoped audit establishes that superseded editions are presented as current, cause consequential selection errors, or create meaningful active-stack burden.","No comparative evidence shows that the lifecycle composition improves authoritative-edition selection or dependency coverage beyond badge-and-ranking alone.","Lineage accuracy, dependency-scan coverage, preservation holds, archive restorability, and an acceptable false-stale tolerance are unverified.","Stakeholder demand, workflow fit, custodian capacity, and records or legal acceptance have not been demonstrated.","Prior art and equivalent operational practices have not been searched or verified."],"next_evidence_step":"Predeclare the sampling frame, authoritative-edition ground truth, selection metric, dependency-coverage method, false-stale tolerance, and restore targets; then run the authorized read-only shadow pilot on one map family in one portal. First audit whether the stated problem falsifier holds, then compare lifecycle-state recommendations with badge-and-ranking alone using blinded representative users and dependency review. Stop if no material problem is found, the composition offers no comparative improvement, false-stale flags exceed tolerance, or any sampled restore fails.","research_questions":["How often, within the scoped map family, are superseded editions exposed or selected as current, and what consequences or maintenance burdens follow?","Can producers and custodians establish authoritative lineage and current-edition ground truth with acceptable agreement?","Does the proposed composition improve blinded users' authoritative-edition selection compared with badge-and-ranking alone?","What proportion of internal and external dependencies can the proposed checks detect, and which missed dependencies would block lifecycle changes?","Can every sampled retained edition be restored within predeclared fidelity and latency targets?","Which retention schedules, preservation holds, public-record duties, and destruction requirements govern each layer class?","Do planners, scientists, custodians, records officers, and affected communities accept the proposed states, notices, exceptions, and appeal paths?","Are equivalent lifecycle, catalog-versioning, retention, tombstone, quarantine, or restoration practices already available in relevant systems?","What catalog size, metadata condition, archive condition, and review workload determine implementation and recurring resource bands?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["The problem, its prevalence, and its realized consequences are hypotheses rather than externally supported findings.","World novelty, prior-art absence, market size, stakeholder demand, and adoption prevalence are unmeasured.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based only on the stated scope and assumptions, not vendor quotes or observed implementations.","The proposal may misclassify scientifically contested editions or overlook external downloads, informal citations, minority evidence, and binding retention or destruction duties.","Results from one map family or sampled restores would not establish performance across every portal, map family, dependency, or archive."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is unsearched and unverified in this closed-book assessment. The sealed packet supports only structural comparison with its stated badge-and-ranking rival; it cannot establish novelty, rarity, absence of equivalent practice, or freedom to operate."}