{"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__gender_studies","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"gender_studies","title":"Lifecycle labeling and supersession routing for gender-research artifacts","opportunity_summary":"Apply explicit lifecycle states, successor links, dependency checks, search routing, reversible quarantine, and restoration testing to reduce accidental reuse of superseded gender- and sexuality-research artifacts while preserving historical interpretation and accountability. The mechanism and safe test are well specified, but problem prevalence, adopter demand, incremental effect, scalability, and prior-art distinctiveness remain unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"The repository data steward is the operational adopter and may label and route artifacts. Irreversible disposition requires the artifact owner and locally designated ethics or records authority, with affected-community consultation when representational stakes are material.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If wrong-version reuse occurs materially, the proposal addresses consequential validity, representation, reproducibility, and accountability failures while also protecting historical evidence. The realized magnitude cannot be scored higher because accidental reuse prevalence and effect size are unverified."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Researchers, curators, data stewards, participants, and governance authorities have proposal-specific reasons to value clearer artifact status, but the packet provides no evidence of expressed demand, recurring incidents, budget ownership, or willingness to assume the curation burden."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the specified immutable repository with a maintained current-version index, the proposal adds decay triggers, exception handling, dependency-gated disposition, successor routing, reversible quarantine, and restoration testing. Whether these additions improve selection enough to justify their burden remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The combined workflow is coherently differentiated from the named nearest rival, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED and the packet cannot establish differentiation from existing repository, preservation, metadata, or records-lifecycle practices."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Lifecycle metadata, successor links, index routing, snapshots, and restore drills are technically conventional enough to support a bounded read-only pilot. Contextual-staleness judgments, external dependencies, restricted artifacts, and integration with existing repositories create material implementation uncertainty."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet identifies who may label and route artifacts and who must authorize irreversible disposition. Feasibility remains mixed because ownership may be fragmented, community consultation can be contested, and local ethics and records responsibilities may overlap."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":5,"rationale":"The candidate supplies a 90-day read-only test capped at 100 artifacts from two consenting collections, matched comparisons, measurable selection and retrieval outcomes, restore drills, explicit falsifiers, halt conditions, and rollback without deletion or access restriction."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"The intervention directly preserves labeled historical access and uses reversible quarantine, authority gates, dependency checks, recorded snapshots, restore testing, explicit excluded actions, and operational halt conditions to limit damage from incorrect lifecycle judgments."},"scalability":{"score":2,"rationale":"Scaling requires repeated contextual review, dependency tracing, exception management, authority coordination, community consultation, and label maintenance across contested concepts. The candidate itself identifies curator workload and disagreement as a failure condition, and supplies no evidence that reliability or cost improves at larger scale."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and conduct the specified 90-day read-only pilot on at most 100 artifacts from two consenting collections, including inventory resolution, proposed labels and successor links, matched search testing, participant recruitment, governance review, restore drills, analysis, and reporting.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing repository access and snapshots are available without major procurement.","No deletion, access restriction, production search change, or retroactive recoding occurs.","The work requires meaningful curator, researcher, evaluator, and governance labor plus limited affected-community consultation.","Sensitive-data handling can use existing institutional controls."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Productionize the validated workflow for a bounded repository or small collection set, including metadata fields, successor routing, review queues, exception registers, audit logs, training, and restoration procedures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The repository supports configurable metadata and search routing.","Deployment remains within one institution and excludes wholesale legacy-catalog remediation.","Existing identity, access, backup, and records systems can be integrated rather than replaced.","Legal, ethics, and community-governance work is limited but nontrivial."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch an institution-level service across multiple research collections with production search behavior, staffed review and appeals, dependency checks, restricted-artifact controls, monitoring, training, and governance oversight.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Institution-level rather than cross-institutional deployment is intended.","Legacy artifacts require selective rather than exhaustive review before launch.","No custom repository platform replacement or large-scale data migration is required.","Representational disputes and ownership gaps require dedicated coordination capacity."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Operate an institution-level program with curator and data-steward labor, periodic reviews, successor and dependency maintenance, affected-party consultation, appeals, monitoring, restore drills, training, and software support.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Coverage spans multiple active collections with continuing artifact creation.","Human judgment remains necessary for contextual staleness and contested classifications.","Existing infrastructure absorbs storage, backup, and basic security costs.","The packet does not define artifact volume, review frequency, or service-level requirements."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate specifies an observable wrong-version problem, consequences, and a representative-audit falsifier, but supplies no external evidence that accidental reuse or associated burden is non-negligible."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The repository data steward is identified as the labeling and routing adopter, while artifact owners and designated ethics or records authorities control irreversible disposition, with community consultation for material representational stakes."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that lifecycle states, successor routing, exceptions, dependency gates, and restore testing will outperform the specified current-version-index rival on wrong-version selection and decision time without worsening historical retrieval, citations, complaints, or restoration."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a 90-day read-only pilot limited to 100 artifacts and two consenting collections, with matched baseline searches, restore drills, explicit outcome measures, halt rules, and rollback."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the first evidence step, no deletion or access restriction is permitted; affected parties, decision rights, exclusions, halt criteria, and snapshot-based rollback are specified. These controls do not establish safety for later operational disposition."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The pilot boundary supports a broad first-evidence estimate, but the candidate does not define production artifact volume, repository integrations, staffing model, review frequency, consultation load, or rollout scale sufficiently to establish implementation and recurring cost ranges with confidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["A representative audit establishing the frequency and consequences of accidental superseded-artifact selection, separately from intentional historical or longitudinal use.","A comparison showing that the lifecycle bundle improves wrong-version selection or decision time over the maintained current-version-index rival without materially degrading historical retrieval or citation resolution.","Evidence that curators and affected reviewers can assign and maintain lifecycle states with acceptable agreement, workload, appeal rates, and minority-framework safeguards.","Prior-art research comparing the full bundle with established repository versioning, metadata, digital-preservation, and records-lifecycle workflows.","A production-scope inventory covering artifact volume, repository integrations, restricted-data controls, ownership gaps, governance participants, and recurring review demand."],"next_evidence_step":"Run the authorized 90-day read-only pilot on no more than 100 artifacts from two consenting collections. Compare proposed lifecycle and successor labels with matched searches using the nearest-rival maintained current-version index; measure accidental wrong-version selection, compatibility-decision time, historical retrieval, unresolved citations, representational complaints, and restore fidelity. Falsify advancement if selection or decision time does not improve, or if historical retrieval, complaints, unresolved citations, or restore failures exceed preset tolerances.","research_questions":["How often do users accidentally select superseded artifacts, and how often is older-artifact use intentional and appropriate?","Which lifecycle-state criteria produce reliable decisions without converting conceptual disagreement into institutional suppression?","Does the complete intervention bundle outperform a prominently maintained current-version index after accounting for curator and reviewer labor?","What artifact classes, dependencies, holds, ownership gaps, and restricted-data obligations determine operational scope and cost?","What existing repository, preservation, metadata, and records-governance practices already implement some or all of the proposed bundle?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no evidence of problem prevalence, market size, realized impact, adopter demand, or institutional budget commitment.","Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED, so world novelty and practical distinctiveness are unmeasured.","The meaning of superseded is contextual and contested rather than a monotonic function of age.","Pilot feasibility does not establish safe or affordable institution-wide disposition authority.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on assumed deployment scopes, not quoted or observed costs.","External citations and privately held copies may prevent complete dependency resolution.","Community consultation requirements, label disagreement, and curator workload may materially limit scale."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No claim is made that this workflow, any component, or the combined bundle is novel, uncommon, or absent from current repository, preservation, metadata, ethics, or records-governance practice. The sealed packet supports only a structurally coherent and testable hypothesis; prior art, prevalence, effect size, demand, realized feasibility, and exact cost require external research."}