{"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 states for subregulatory guidance","opportunity_summary":"A non-dispositive lifecycle process would inventory agency guidance, recommend authoritative status labels, record dependencies and holds, preserve visible supersession history, and test reversible archiving. The target problem and baseline are hypotheses: the packet contains no agency-level evidence that stale-guidance reliance or cleanup paralysis is material.","adopter_authorizer":"An issuing agency office is the prospective adopter; agency counsel and the records authority must approve actions within their respective mandates, while only legally empowered bodies may change binding law and courts retain interpretive authority.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"If the hypothesized ambiguity is material, clearer operative guidance could reduce reliance on stale instructions while preserving reliance history and accountability. The packet provides no prevalence, decision-error, or effect-size observations, so realized impact is uncertain."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal identifies affected staff, governed parties, counsel, oversight bodies, and public requesters, but supplies no expressed demand, complaints, sponsor commitment, budget, or observed user behavior from a target agency."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the stated one-time inventory rival, continuing review triggers, exception revalidation, dependency gates, persistent supersession markers, rollback, and restoration tests form a concrete incremental claim. Whether these additions improve outcomes remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The integration of lifecycle states, authority controls, dependency checks, visible markers, and reversible archiving is coherently differentiated from the packet's one-time-inventory rival, but prior art is unsearched and no broader distinctiveness claim can be verified."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A 60-day shadow exercise on at most 100 artifacts can use inventory, metadata, review recommendations, user tasks, logs, and archive-restore tests without changing legal effect. Identity resolution, dependency discovery, repository integration, and hold detection remain practical uncertainties."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet assigns proposal, legal-review, and records authorities, reserves legal effect to empowered bodies, excludes automatic repeal and destruction, and supplies halt and rollback rules. Cross-office agreement and actual approval willingness are not evidenced."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate provides separate problem and intervention falsifiers plus a bounded shadow-pilot concept, but lacks agency observations, a sampling plan, measurement instruments, comparison assignment, and decision thresholds."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Preserving every artifact and log, testing restoration, maintaining accessible status markers, removing pilot labels on halt, and retaining counsel review create a substantial reversible safety net. Mislabeling and practical access reduction still require explicit measurement."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Lifecycle states and review triggers could be reused across repositories and offices, but legal authority, retention duties, holds, artifact identity, dependencies, and publication systems are institution-specific and may require substantial local configuration."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and execute the bounded 60-day shadow study on at most 100 artifacts from one office, including sampling, inventory, baseline comparison, blinded user tasks, ambiguity coding, hold checks, archive-restoration tests, counsel and records review, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing artifacts and repository access are available without major procurement.","No artifact is deleted, withdrawn, publicly relabeled, or given changed legal effect.","Agency counsel, records personnel, frontline users, and evaluators contribute part-time labor.","The study uses existing software or a lightweight prototype rather than production integration."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Prepare a limited production deployment for one office after favorable evidence, including authoritative workflow design, repository integration, access controls, migration, status-marker interfaces, audit logging, training, legal review, and validation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One office and a bounded set of repositories are included.","Existing identity, search, archive, and records systems expose usable interfaces.","No major legacy-system replacement is required.","Security, accessibility, privacy, records, and legal approvals are included."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Launch the governed lifecycle process across multiple offices in one agency, including broader inventory resolution, integrations, policy adoption, change management, dependency mapping, archive capacity, restore testing, and independent evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The agency has multiple heterogeneous repositories and guidance owners.","Rollout requires local legal and records configuration by office.","The band excludes replacement of a major enterprise records platform.","Legacy cleanup and manual review remain material components."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Operate a multi-office agency program with periodic revalidation, owner review, counsel and records oversight, metadata maintenance, audit monitoring, restore tests, training, support, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Review volume is manageable by a small central function plus distributed part-time owners.","Most artifacts need periodic review rather than continuous legal analysis.","Existing hosting, records storage, and identity infrastructure can be reused.","Litigation holds or major regulatory transitions could increase annual effort beyond the band."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The stale-guidance mechanism, affected actors, observable state, and falsifier are recognizable, but the packet expressly treats material occurrence in a target agency as a hypothesis and supplies no agency-level observations."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies the issuing office as adopter and agency counsel and records authority as required approvers, while reserving changes to binding law to legally empowered bodies."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be compared with the existing workflow or a one-time inventory on user accuracy, identification time, unresolved ambiguity, stale-flag errors, missed holds, and restoration failures."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a 60-day shadow pilot on at most 100 artifacts from one office with recommendations, proposed labels, and restoration tests but no deletion, withdrawal, or change in legal effect."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the shadow step, authority boundaries, excluded actions, preservation requirements, halt triggers, and rollback are explicit; pilot outputs must remain non-dispositive and unavailable as authoritative legal determinations."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The 60-day and 100-artifact limits bound first evidence, but repository condition, access, identity resolution effort, hold data, staffing, integrations, and review volume are unknown, making deployment scope and cost externally dependent."}},"blocking_evidence":["A representative inventory showing whether authoritative lifecycle states, successor links, and search prioritization are actually incomplete.","Observed evidence that users encounter ambiguity, rely on stale guidance, or defer necessary cleanup at a material rate.","Baseline and comparison results for accuracy and time when identifying current guidance.","Measured false stale-label rates, missed-hold rates, dependency-discovery failures, and archive-restoration failures.","Confirmation that issuing-office, counsel, and records authorities will sponsor and govern a non-dispositive study.","Repository and workflow discovery sufficient to validate deployment integrations, staffing, and cost scope.","A bounded prior-art review establishing whether the integrated lifecycle claim differs materially from existing guidance, records, archival, and website-governance practices."],"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register and run the authorized 60-day shadow study on a representative sample of at most 100 artifacts from one office. Compare the existing workflow with proposed lifecycle recommendations in blinded user tasks measuring current-guidance identification accuracy and time, unresolved ambiguity, false stale flags, missed holds, and restoration success. Falsify the opportunity if the baseline already has nearly complete authoritative states and successor links with no material reliance or cleanup problem, or if the shadow method provides no improvement or breaches preset safety thresholds. Make no public status change, disposition, deletion, or alteration of legal effect.","research_questions":["How often do representative artifacts lack accurate authoritative lifecycle states, successor links, dependency records, or search prioritization?","Do frontline users and affected parties materially misidentify controlling guidance or experience consequential delays under the existing workflow?","What false-label, missed-hold, dependency-discovery, and restoration-failure thresholds are acceptable to counsel and records authorities?","Does the proposed workflow outperform the existing process and a one-time inventory on blinded identification accuracy, time, and unresolved ambiguity?","Which repository integrations, staffing roles, approval steps, and retention constraints determine realistic deployment cost and scalability?","Does prior-art research show that the integrated lifecycle approach is meaningfully distinct from existing agency guidance-management and records-governance practices?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["The problem's material prevalence in any agency is unsupported and explicitly hypothetical.","The stated fragmented baseline for the pilot institution is unverified.","No stakeholder demand, sponsor commitment, adoption willingness, market size, or realized impact evidence is supplied.","Effectiveness, error rates, dependency discovery, hold detection, restoration reliability, and user behavior are untested.","Prior art, novelty, and prevalence of comparable governance systems cannot be inferred closed-book.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based only on the bounded scope and stated functions, not observed procurement or implementation data.","Age can trigger review but cannot establish invalidity, withdrawal authority, or permission to destroy a legal record."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is unsearched and unverified. This closed-book assessment makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, market size, or superiority over existing agency guidance-management, records-retention, archival, status-register, or website-governance systems."}