{"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__film_media_production","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"film_media_production","title":"Dependency-aware lifecycle governance for post-production assets","opportunity_summary":"Apply explicit lifecycle states, dependency and hold checks, reversible quarantine, storage-tier transitions, authority markers, and restore drills to edit versions, renders, proxies, stems, exports, and project files. The proposal could reduce stale-version confusion and active-storage burden while preserving reconstruction and rights evidence, but problem prevalence, comparative benefit, workflow demand, and distinctiveness from established practice are unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"The production or post-production supervisor would adopt and own lifecycle classification; designated asset owners approve exceptions, archive or IT verifies recoverability, and legal or rights authorities control applicable holds and irreversible destruction.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Retrieving or delivering obsolete media, losing reconstructive or rights evidence, and retaining low-value artifacts on active storage are consequential outcomes. The proposal addresses all three, although their frequency and aggregate burden are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Editors, post-production supervisors, archivists, producers, and rights staff have plausible reasons to value clearer authority and safer cleanup, but the packet contains no interviews, observed demand, purchasing commitment, or measured prevalence."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Compared with the specified one-time manual sweep, persistent lifecycle states, dependency and hold gates, reversible quarantine, stale-authority markers, and restore drills provide a clear testable improvement in governance and safety. No comparative result is supplied."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The combined use of persistent states, dependency-aware disposition, quarantine, authority markers, and recurring restore validation is differentiated from the sealed manual-sweep rival. Prior art is wholly unsearched, so distinctiveness from real media-asset and preservation workflows remains uncertain."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A 200-artifact, two-class inventory and simulated tiering exercise is technically bounded and uses recognizable storage and asset-management functions. Canonical identity, proprietary project formats, hidden collaborator or plug-in dependencies, and legacy codec or software context could materially limit implementation."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet assigns classification, exception, recoverability, hold, and destruction authority to named roles and provides halt conditions. Feasibility may weaken where productions, distributors, clients, contributors, and rights holders have fragmented or disputed control."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate specifies a reversible 200-artifact comparison, a 30-day quarantine, restore tests, outcome measures, a manual-sweep rival, and explicit problem and intervention falsifiers. Baseline measurement details and thresholds for material improvement still need definition."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Owner approval, dependency and hold checks, recoverable quarantine, integrity and relink tests, preserved logs, and halt-and-restore rules directly reduce deletion risk. They cannot guarantee discovery of tacit dependencies or preservation of unusable legacy software contexts."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Class rules, lifecycle markers, tier transitions, and recurring reviews could be standardized across productions, but identity resolution, exception review, rights decisions, dependency discovery, and restore validation may remain labor-intensive and project-specific."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Baseline audit and bounded comparison for 200 artifacts across two classes on one completed, non-litigated production, including labeling, dependency review, simulated tiering, approved quarantine, retrieval measurements, and restore or relink tests.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing storage and project files are accessible without major data-recovery work.","The work uses current staff and available archive or storage capabilities rather than purchasing a new enterprise platform.","Legal and rights review is limited to confirming eligibility and holds for the bounded sample.","The 30-day quarantine does not create significant new storage charges."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Configure lifecycle states, authority markers, dependency records, approval workflows, archive-tier transitions, logging, restore procedures, and staff training for an initial production workflow.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing asset-management and storage systems can be configured or modestly integrated.","No comprehensive migration of the historical catalog is included.","Preservation masters remain unchanged and destructive automation is excluded.","Some manual dependency and exception review remains necessary."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Extend the governed lifecycle workflow across multiple active and completed productions, including integrations, governance documentation, historical triage, archive validation, access controls, training, and launch evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch spans a production organization or portfolio rather than an industry-wide service.","Storage and archive infrastructure largely exists but requires integration and validation.","Historical assets vary in naming, formats, ownership, and dependency quality.","Partner, legal, and rights coordination is required for some productions."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing lifecycle reviews, exception and hold handling, integrity and restore drills, archive-tier charges, metadata maintenance, dependency remediation, audit logging, and user support for a modest production portfolio.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The portfolio is moderate in size and does not require dedicated large-scale preservation infrastructure.","Review is partly rules-assisted but retains human approval for risky transitions.","Legacy format remediation and unexpected reopen requests occur occasionally.","No major storage-volume or staffing figures are available in the packet."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate specifies observable ambiguous authority, unknown references, active-storage accumulation, retrieval delay, obsolete delivery risk, and reconstruction tension, all of which can be audited without assuming prevalence."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Production or post-production supervisors, asset owners, archive or IT staff, and legal or rights authorities are assigned distinct adoption, exception, recoverability, hold, and destruction responsibilities."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"Persistent lifecycle labels, dependency gates, tiering, quarantine, markers, and restore drills can be compared with the stated one-time manual archive sweep on retrieval, authority errors, active-storage use, review effort, dependency misses, and restore outcomes."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate limits the first step to 200 artifacts, two classes, one completed non-litigated production, owner-approved quarantine for 30 days, and restore testing before any destruction."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step excludes automatic or irreversible deletion, preservation-master alteration, and disposition under unresolved dependencies or holds; disputed authority, missed dependencies, and failed restores trigger halt and rollback."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The 200-artifact sample and specified workflow components support a broad resource range for first evidence, while wider deployment remains estimateable only in low-confidence bands because system, portfolio, and archive conditions are absent."}},"blocking_evidence":["A representative baseline audit showing that lifecycle sprawl, rather than primarily naming, search, or approval-metadata defects, creates material retrieval, authority, or active-tier burden.","Comparative pilot evidence that the governed workflow improves retrieval time, authoritative-version errors, or active-storage use relative to the manual-sweep rival without review effort exceeding the measured benefit.","Evidence that dependency checks and archived software, codec, integrity, relink, and restoration procedures are sufficiently reliable for the artifact classes considered.","External prior-art research establishing whether the mechanism composition materially differs from existing media-asset management, digital-preservation, and post-production archival workflows.","Stakeholder evidence that the responsible supervisors, asset owners, archive staff, and rights authorities will accept the required classification and approval workload."],"next_evidence_step":"On one completed, non-litigated production, compare a stratified sample of 200 artifacts from two artifact classes under the proposed lifecycle workflow versus the one-time manual-sweep procedure: record baseline retrieval time, authority errors, active-tier footprint, and review effort; map dependencies; simulate tiering; quarantine only owner-approved duplicates or superseded derivatives for 30 days; then run integrity, relink, and restoration tests. Falsify advancement if benefits are absent, review cost exceeds measured benefit, any live dependency is missed, or any agreed restore target fails.","research_questions":["How much obsolete or ambiguous material remains discoverable as current after controlling for naming, search, and approval-metadata defects?","Which artifact classes account for the largest retrieval burden, authority errors, and avoidable active-tier use?","Can canonical identity and inbound dependencies be resolved reliably across edit, VFX, sound, export, and external-collaborator systems?","Does the proposed workflow outperform the manual-sweep rival after counting classification, approval, exception, and restore-testing labor?","Which software, plug-in, codec, consent, contractual, legal, and historical conditions require indefinite retention or environment preservation?","Who has legitimate disposition authority when production, client, distributor, contributor, archive, and rights-holder interests conflict?","Do quarantine markers and tombstones remain governed, or do they become another unmanaged layer?","How closely does the full mechanism composition overlap with existing media-asset management, digital-preservation, and post-production archival practices?"],"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["No external evidence establishes problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, effect size, market size, realized savings, or operational adoption.","Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so world novelty and practical distinctiveness cannot be scored affirmatively.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based only on the stated sample and workflow scope, not vendor pricing or observed labor.","Hidden dependencies, proprietary formats, unavailable software or codecs, and tacit creative practice may not be captured by an inventory graph.","Older creative artifacts can regain value after long intervals, limiting confidence in staleness-based disposition rules.","Authority and retention obligations may differ by production, contract, jurisdiction, client, and rights holder."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet only establishes differentiation from its stated one-time manual-sweep rival. It provides no basis to claim novelty, rarity, prevalence, or superiority relative to existing media-asset management, digital-preservation, storage-tiering, records-governance, or post-production archival systems and practices."}