{"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__law_governance","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"law_governance","title":"Governed Lifecycle Management for Subregulatory Guidance","opportunity_summary":"A controlled lifecycle process would inventory agency guidance, assign reviewable status recommendations, preserve successor and dependency links, and test reversible archival so users can distinguish current guidance from historical material. The packet presents a coherent, safe shadow pilot, but whether the target problem occurs materially and whether the integrated approach outperforms existing practice remain untested.","adopter_authorizer":"The prospective adopter is an issuing agency office. Status or disposition actions require approval from agency counsel and the records authority within their respective mandates; only legally empowered bodies may change binding legal effect.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Mistaken reliance, contradictory instructions, and lost reliance history could be consequential, but the packet supplies no agency observations establishing frequency, severity, or material impact."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Several affected groups are identified, but no agency, official, regulated party, or oversight body is shown requesting the intervention or committing resources."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Continuing review triggers, exception revalidation, dependency gates, rollback, persistent markers, and restore tests offer a testable advantage over the specified one-time inventory rival, but no comparative performance evidence is supplied."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The integrated lifecycle configuration is plausibly differentiated from the stated rival, but prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED and overlap with existing guidance, records, archival, and website-governance systems is unknown."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Inventorying at most 100 artifacts, proposing metadata states, logging recommendations, and testing restoration are technically bounded and do not require automatic legal decisions; reliable identity, dependency, and hold discovery remain material challenges."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet clearly assigns roles to issuing offices, counsel, and records authorities, but adoption requires coordination across mandates and metadata alone cannot authorize withdrawal, repeal, or records disposition."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate supplies a 60-day non-dispositive pilot, explicit problem and intervention falsifiers, safety stops, and rollback, but sampling, blinded-task design, measurement instruments, comparison assignment, and decision thresholds are not operationalized."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preservation, visible status markers, audited reversible disposition, restore tests, halt conditions, and counsel-led review directly protect legal reconstruction and reliance evidence while attempting to reduce current-use ambiguity."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The lifecycle structure could repeat across offices and repositories, but each expansion would require institution-specific authority mapping, retention analysis, dependency discovery, repository integration, and continuing review capacity."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and conduct the authorized 60-day shadow pilot for at most 100 artifacts in one office, including inventory, identity resolution, counsel and records review, baseline comparison, blinded user tasks, hold checks, restoration testing, logging, and evaluation.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing artifacts and repositories can be accessed without major procurement or digitization.","The pilot remains non-dispositive and makes no changes to legal effect or public availability.","Agency counsel, records personnel, operational users, and evaluators contribute resource-equivalent labor.","No unusually complex classified, privacy-restricted, or litigation-held collection dominates the sample."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Convert a successful shadow process into a controlled one-office production capability with authoritative workflows, repository integration, visible markers, permissions, audit logging, restoration procedures, training, and compliance review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The office has repositories that permit metadata and search integration.","Existing identity, access, records, and publication systems can be adapted rather than replaced.","Legal and records approvals can be incorporated into workflow without creating a new adjudicative system.","Historical artifacts do not require extensive manual digitization or remediation."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Launch the governed lifecycle across multiple agency offices and public or internal repositories, including migration, dependency mapping, governance, user support, training, accessibility, security, evaluation, and phased rollout controls.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch spans heterogeneous offices and repositories rather than only the pilot office.","Material manual review is required because legal status cannot be inferred safely from age or metadata alone.","Public-facing markers and archive access must remain usable and auditable.","The scope does not include wholesale replacement of agency-wide content-management infrastructure."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Operate periodic revalidation, owner and exception reviews, counsel and records approvals, dependency and hold checks, repository maintenance, audit and restore testing, training, support, and outcome monitoring.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Review volume is ongoing but does not require continuous review of the entire historical corpus.","Agency staff retain final authority rather than delegating legal decisions to automation.","Repository hosting and core identity infrastructure already exist.","Recurring work includes correction of erroneous labels and maintenance of successor links and visible status markers."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The stale-guidance mechanism and consequences are intelligible and falsifiable, but material occurrence in any target agency is explicitly a hypothesis unsupported by agency-level observations."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet identifies issuing agency offices as adopters and assigns approval roles to agency counsel and the records authority while reserving legal effect to empowered bodies."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that continuing lifecycle states, triggers, dependency gates, persistent markers, rollback, and restore tests improve identification and ambiguity outcomes relative to the existing workflow or a one-time inventory; the packet states corresponding falsifiers."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A 60-day shadow pilot covering at most 100 artifacts in one office is bounded, non-dispositive, reversible, and can compare user accuracy, time, ambiguity, false flags, hold detection, and restoration against the existing workflow."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The pilot prohibits deletion, withdrawal, legal-effect changes, automatic repeal, and hold violations, and supplies explicit halt and rollback conditions; later disposition would still require authorized review."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate defines a sufficiently bounded pilot and names the main actors, repositories, controls, and evaluation activities needed to assign broad resource-equivalent bands, although production scale and integration complexity remain uncertain."}},"blocking_evidence":["No representative agency inventory establishes that lifecycle-state ambiguity, stale-guidance reliance, or cleanup paralysis is material in the intended office.","No comparative evidence shows that the proposed lifecycle process improves identification accuracy, time, or ambiguity over the existing workflow.","Acceptable bounds for false stale labels, missed holds, unresolved dependencies, access degradation, and restoration failure are unspecified.","Prior art and overlap with existing guidance registers, records-retention systems, archives, and website-governance practices are unsearched.","The feasibility of making authoritative status markers visible at actual points of use is unknown."],"next_evidence_step":"With one issuing office, preregister and run the authorized 60-day shadow pilot on a representative sample of at most 100 artifacts, making no disposition or legal-effect changes. Compare blinded users using the existing workflow versus the proposed inventory and status recommendations on accuracy and time in identifying current guidance, while separately measuring unresolved ambiguity, false stale flags, missed holds, and archive-restoration success. Stop or reject the approach if it provides no improvement or triggers any stated safety halt.","research_questions":["Does a representative inventory confirm material lifecycle-state ambiguity, weak successor linking, stale search prominence, reliance errors, or cleanup paralysis in the target office?","Compared with the existing workflow, does the shadow process improve blinded users' accuracy or time in identifying current guidance?","Can dependencies, retention duties, privacy requirements, and holds be discovered with error rates acceptable to counsel and the records authority?","Do visible status markers preserve practical public access and prevent users from mistaking metadata for repeal or adjudication?","Can archived artifacts and prior indexes be restored reliably while preserving wording, temporal context, logs, and reliance history?","Which elements, if any, are incrementally distinct from existing agency guidance-management, records-governance, archival, and publication practices?"],"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment; no external evidence was used.","Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, baseline practice, effect size, and realized impact are unmeasured.","World novelty, prior art, market size, and institutional prevalence cannot be inferred from the packet.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not quotations or point estimates.","Old age cannot establish lack of legal authority, and withdrawal cannot establish permission to destroy or obscure an artifact.","Production feasibility depends on agency-specific repositories, legal mandates, records schedules, holds, dependencies, and approval workflows."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The packet identifies the nearest rival as a one-time inventory and consolidation project, but supplies no search results. No conclusion can be drawn about novelty or prevalence relative to existing guidance registers, version-control practices, records-retention systems, archives, content-management platforms, or website-governance processes."}