{"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__geoengineering_planetary_science","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"geoengineering_planetary_science","title":"Governed lifecycle states for superseded geoengineering simulation artifacts","opportunity_summary":"Test whether explicit supersession links, retention states, dependency checks, authority-aware search views, recoverable tiering, and restoration controls can reduce ambiguous reuse and active-tier burden without impairing reproducibility or erasing required scientific memory. The packet establishes a coherent and reversible proposal, but the prevalence of the problem and the intervention's benefit remain hypotheses.","adopter_authorizer":"A research repository or computing steward could adopt the workflow under policy approved by the responsible scientific institution; artifact owners or designated scientific-governance authorities must approve irreversible deletion, subject to holds.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the hypothesized condition exists, mistaking superseded artifacts for current evidence could affect scientific review and policy use, while uncertain dependencies discourage cleanup. The affected decisions can be consequential, although the packet provides no evidence about prevalence or realized harm."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal identifies researchers, stewards, reviewers, decision-makers, and affected communities, but supplies no interviews, requests, observed cleanup demand, budget commitment, or adopter willingness."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to informal directories and the stated deduplication-and-compression rival, the proposal adds authority states, supersession links, dependency tracing, holds, search demotion, recoverable disposition, and restore testing. Whether these additions outperform their labor and coordination costs is untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The integrated combination of lifecycle governance, authority-aware retrieval, reversible tiering, and reconstruction safeguards is proposal-specific and testable, but prior art in research-data retention, provenance, archives, and repository governance is explicitly unsearched."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A capped inventory, labeling workflow, archive sample, and restore drill appear technically approachable for one closed project. Identity resolution, external dependency discovery, format durability, and reliable successor linkage may be difficult enough to prevent safe classification or disposition."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet names a repository steward, institutional policy approval, owner or scientific-governance approval for irreversible deletion, and controlling holds. Feasibility remains short of very favorable because the relevant institution and participating owners have not agreed to the pilot."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate defines observable repository conditions, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, a 90-day capped pilot, restoration checks, halt criteria, and measurable adverse outcomes. No starting audit data or preset numerical tolerances are supplied."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"The intervention is read-only first, excludes physical intervention and automatic hard deletion, preserves contested and safety-relevant artifacts, uses quarantine and restoration, requires approval, and specifies concrete halt-and-rollback triggers."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Lifecycle states and audit patterns could be reused across repositories, but heterogeneous metadata, undocumented external dependencies, owner review, governance differences, and manual classification may make scaling labor-intensive."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded read-only audit and sandbox evaluation of at most 1,000 artifacts from one closed project, including inventory, lifecycle-label coverage, supersession retrieval tests, dependency sampling, and a limited restore drill.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One repository grants timely read access.","Existing staff can identify artifacts and owners without extensive data recovery.","Evaluation uses existing repository and search infrastructure.","No live deletion or production search change occurs."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and configure lifecycle taxonomy, metadata mappings, approval workflow, holds, sandbox authority-aware search, recoverable archive integration, audit logging, and staff procedures for one institutional repository.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing storage, identity, backup, and repository platforms can be extended.","The initial scope excludes custom migration across many repositories.","Legal, confidentiality, and records-policy review is limited to one institution.","Substantial manual metadata remediation may be needed but not full historical reconstruction."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch the governed workflow across an institutional repository portfolio, including artifact migration, owner review, dependency remediation, training, restore validation, governance review, evaluation, and production search integration.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch covers several projects or collections rather than an entire multi-institution field.","No new storage facility or bespoke repository platform is required.","Existing systems expose adequate metadata and integration interfaces.","The institution funds scientific review and dispute handling."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing lifecycle review, owner and hold coordination, periodic revalidation, dependency checks, archive charges, integrity monitoring, restore drills, audits, user support, and policy maintenance for one institution.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Most classification is event-driven or periodic rather than continuous manual review.","Cold-tier storage remains recoverable using maintained formats and tooling.","Repository volume and dispute rates remain moderate.","Major platform replacement and multi-institution governance are excluded."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet describes a recognizable, observable problem and a direct problem falsifier, but all prevalence, retrieval, burden, and consequence claims are marked as hypotheses and no repository observations are supplied."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Repository or research-computing stewards are identified as adopters, with institutional scientific policy approval and owner or designated governance approval specified for irreversible deletion."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that governed lifecycle labels, search treatment, dependency checks, and recoverable tiering improve ambiguity and active-tier burden beyond informal cleanup or compression alone, with explicit benefit and harm falsifiers."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a 90-day, read-only-first pilot on one closed project capped at 1,000 artifacts, including dependency tracing, sampled archiving, restoration proof, and tightly controlled disposition only after review."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet excludes physical geoengineering action and automatic hard deletion, assigns classification and deletion authority, protects held or sensitive artifacts, and requires halt and rollback for provenance, dependency, integrity, restoration, ownership, hold, or successor-link failures."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The 90-day duration, one-project boundary, 1,000-artifact cap, stratified restore sample, and optional 20-item disposition cap provide enough scope to assign broad resource-equivalent ranges, though estimates remain low-confidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["A representative audit establishing whether lifecycle labels, authority states, supersession links, dependency metadata, restoration readiness, and stale-artifact retrieval are materially deficient.","A controlled comparison showing that lifecycle labels and authority-aware search reduce superseded-artifact retrieval or active-tier burden without worsening valid-evidence discovery, reproduction success, or classification disputes.","Evidence that dependency tracing and cold-tier restoration are reliable enough to support reversible disposition within preset tolerances.","Adopter and artifact-owner confirmation that the operational burden addresses a priority worth funding and governing.","A bounded prior-art comparison against existing research-data retention, provenance, archival, and repository-governance practices."],"next_evidence_step":"Run the specified 90-day read-only-first study on one closed repository containing at most 1,000 artifacts. Measure baseline lifecycle-metadata coverage, superseded artifacts returned as current, active-tier burden, dependency completeness, and restoration readiness; then compare baseline retrieval with a sandbox authority-aware view and conduct integrity-checked restoration of a stratified archived sample. Falsify the diagnosis if authority is already clear and burdens negligible; reject the intervention if it fails to improve retrieval or burden, or exceeds preset tolerances for reproduction, restoration, disputes, or time-to-find valid evidence. Do not soft-delete unless a separate post-study decision confirms owner approval and dependency freedom.","research_questions":["How often do users retrieve or reuse superseded artifacts as though they were current, and with what consequences?","What proportion of artifacts have sufficient provenance, successor linkage, ownership, dependency, citation, hold, and confidentiality metadata for safe lifecycle classification?","Does an authority-aware sandbox search view improve identification of valid current evidence without hiding historically, scientifically, or socially important material?","What restoration success, integrity, and time thresholds are required before recoverable tiering is acceptable?","How much expert and owner-review labor is required per artifact, and does that burden outweigh storage and review savings?","Which lifecycle controls or combined causal claims differ materially from existing repository, archival, provenance, and retention practices?","How should disputes and affected-community evidence needs alter classifications, holds, discoverability, and deletion authority?","Which artifact types or external dependencies should remain categorically ineligible for deletion or deep archival? "],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment with no external validation.","Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, realized impact, and market size are unmeasured.","Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty and distinctiveness cannot be established.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not observed quotes or point estimates.","Metadata quality, repository scale, integration complexity, review labor, dispute rates, and storage requirements are unknown.","The proposal concerns repository governance only and provides no basis for evaluating or deploying physical geoengineering interventions."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The candidate is classified as a domain transfer with UNSEARCHED prior art and hypothesis-level evidence. This assessment makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, existing implementations, market position, or superiority over real-world research-data governance systems."}