{"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__innovation_entrepreneurship","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"innovation_entrepreneurship","title":"Lifecycle-Gated Visibility for Venture Evidence","opportunity_summary":"Apply explicit lifecycle states, supersession markers, retention and dependency checks, reversible quarantine, and restoration tests to venture evidence so obsolete artifacts are less likely to appear authoritative while provenance remains recoverable. The problem prevalence, effect on decisions, stakeholder demand, and distinctiveness from existing governance practices are unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"The adopting unit is a venture or product team, with the venture or product lead authorized to label and archive ordinary artifacts. Irreversible disposition requires the designated records owner and, where applicable, legal or privacy approval; artifact and decision owners retain contest rights.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Mistaking superseded evidence for current authority could affect roadmap, investment, and go-to-market decisions, while destructive cleanup could impair accountability. The sealed candidate provides no evidence about how often either consequence occurs or its realized magnitude."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Founders, portfolio managers, records stewards, investors, and later team members are identifiable beneficiaries or affected parties, but the packet reports no expressed demand, adoption commitment, recurring complaints, or willingness to fund stewardship."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Relative to periodic owner-led cleanup, the proposal adds lifecycle states, supersession markers, dependency gates, holds, quarantine, audit, and restoration testing. Those additions plausibly improve authority signaling and recoverability, but no comparison establishes better outcomes or acceptable maintenance burden."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The integrated application to venture experiments and decision artifacts is coherently specified, but its mechanisms overlap conceptually with records management and knowledge governance categories named in the packet. Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness remains unresolved."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A manual, read-only-first pilot over a bounded corpus can use existing repositories, provisional labels, retrieval exercises, and simulated disposition without requiring a novel technical capability. Identity resolution, tacit dependencies, and cross-tool integration could make broader implementation materially harder."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet assigns ordinary labeling and archiving to venture or product leads, reserves destruction for records owners with applicable legal or privacy approval, permits contests, and defines exclusions. Wider adoption could still require coordination among several authorities with conflicting retention interests."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The six-week bounded design identifies an untreated comparison set, retrieval time, incorrect-current selections, dependency incidents, contested classifications, failed retrievals, and explicit intervention falsifiers. Metric definitions, sampling, tolerances, and baseline instrumentation still require precommitment."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Read-only inventory, simulated disposition, supersession markers, recoverable quarantine, audit logs, contest rights, restore tests, exclusions, and halt conditions provide substantial protection against classification and deletion errors. They cannot fully expose tacit dependencies or prevent selective authority labeling."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Lifecycle labels and rules could be reused across teams, but reliable identity resolution, dependency review, exception governance, restoration testing, and label maintenance may scale with corpus and organizational complexity. Shadow copies and contested interpretations are explicit failure modes."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded prior-art and practice comparison followed by design preparation for the specified one-squad evidence test, including records, privacy, and evaluation review but no live hard deletion.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Internal repository access and relevant staff are available without new enterprise procurement.","The comparison is limited to the complete mechanism bundle and its claimed outcomes in venture-evidence settings.","Specialist legal, privacy, and records input is limited to screening and pilot-rule review."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Configure and validate lifecycle states, permissions, audit procedures, quarantine, restoration, and stewardship for one production repository or tightly bounded venture unit after favorable evidence.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing repository capabilities can be configured or extended rather than replaced.","The initial corpus has manageable identity resolution and few complex holds.","Human review remains the primary classification control."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch across a multi-team innovation portfolio with repository integrations, migration and identity work, policy approval, training, dependency review, evaluation, and change management.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The launch spans several teams and tools but one organization.","No major custom records-management platform or extensive legacy-data remediation is required.","Legal, privacy, security, and records stakeholders participate in governance and acceptance testing."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate one organizational portfolio program, including lifecycle reviews, exception and hold handling, audits, restoration tests, rule maintenance, user support, software operation, and outcome monitoring.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Review volume remains bounded enough for a small shared stewardship function.","Repository licensing and integration support are incremental rather than a full platform replacement.","Classification disputes and dependency investigations do not become persistently intensive."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet specifies observable authority ambiguity and a direct problem falsifier, but supplies no external or internal observations establishing that obsolete artifacts are common or consequential in the proposed adopter setting."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Venture and product teams are identified as adopters; venture or product leads, designated records owners, and applicable legal or privacy functions have explicitly bounded authority."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be compared with untreated artifacts or periodic owner-led cleanup on retrieval time, incorrect-current selections, dependency incidents, contested classifications, and failed retrievals."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate defines a six-week, one-squad test over at most 100 closed experiments with read-only-first inventory, provisional states, an untreated comparison, reversible handling, and explicit falsifiers."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"Hard deletion and sensitive or held categories are excluded; destruction authority is separated from labeling authority; contests, quarantine, audit, halt, rollback, and restoration controls are specified. Remaining risks are testable rather than an unavoidable stop for read-only research."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The bounded pilot and broader implementation activities can be scoped, but the packet gives no repository complexity, integration requirements, corpus size, staffing rates, or governance workload from which to support a reliable implementation range."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether target teams actually encounter materially ambiguous or misleading superseded evidence often enough to justify intervention.","Whether the complete lifecycle-state and authority-gating configuration is meaningfully distinct from existing records-management, knowledge-governance, experiment-repository, and decision-log practices.","Whether lifecycle markers reduce retrieval time and incorrect-current selections relative to an untreated set without increasing failed retrievals, missing dependencies, or contested classifications beyond predeclared tolerances.","Whether users routinely consult the governed repository rather than memory, messaging channels, or shadow copies.","Whether identity resolution, dependency review, exception handling, and label maintenance remain operationally affordable beyond one bounded corpus."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a time-bounded prior-art and practice mapping that compares the proposal's complete bundle—lifecycle states, authority-gated supersession, dependency and hold checks, reversible quarantine, audit, and tested restoration—with the nearest records-management, knowledge-governance, experiment-repository, and decision-log approaches. Advance to the specified read-only-first comparative pilot only if the mapping finds a testable configuration or outcome difference; treat functional equivalence with established practice as the falsifier for a distinct opportunity claim.","research_questions":["How frequently do reviewers misidentify superseded venture artifacts as current, and which decisions are measurably affected?","Do provisional lifecycle states and supersession markers outperform untreated artifacts on retrieval time and incorrect-current selection?","What predeclared tolerance should apply to missing dependencies, contested classifications, failed retrievals, and archive-as-current errors?","Which dependencies are discoverable from repository metadata, and which remain tacit, political, or external?","How much continuing owner and records-steward labor is required to keep lifecycle states accurate?","Does governance reduce active clutter without causing shadow copies, sanitized failure histories, or unjustified authority for weak current evidence?","Which existing practices already implement the full mechanism bundle or achieve the same outcomes?","What retention, privacy, contractual, intellectual-property, and hold constraints differ across prospective adopter settings?"],"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["The assessment is closed-book and uses only the sealed candidate.","Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, and willingness to pay are unmeasured.","Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty or competitive-position claim is made.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning judgments based on stated scope, not observed prices or implementation data.","Broader performance cannot be inferred from the proposed one-squad, closed-experiment corpus.","The interpretive nature of venture evidence and the presence of tacit dependencies may limit transfer from storage-oriented lifecycle controls."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No conclusion is drawn about world novelty, existing products, established practices, adoption prevalence, or competitive advantage. The packet itself identifies records management, knowledge governance, experiment repositories, and decision logs as comparison categories, but provides no search results or comparative evidence."}