{"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__operations_research","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"operations_research","title":"Dependency-Gated Lifecycle Management for Recurring Optimization Artifacts","opportunity_summary":"Evaluate a reversible lifecycle-control process that uses lineage, supersession status, retention classes, holds, dependency checks, quarantine, tombstones, and restoration tests to reduce stale-output exposure and active-tier resource use without impairing reproducibility, audit, or rollback. The problem and intervention remain hypotheses because prevalence, local demand, performance, and prior art are unmeasured.","adopter_authorizer":"Operations-research model owners and records or risk owners jointly authorize retention classes and disposition rules; platform operators implement approved transitions without overriding holds or failed dependency gates.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Preventing obsolete outputs from influencing decisions while preserving reconstruction could matter materially, but the packet supplies no evidence about frequency, consequence severity, affected volume, or achievable savings."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Model owners, planners, platform operators, and reviewers have plausible interests, but no interviews, adoption requests, cleanup backlog measurements, budget signals, or documented stakeholder demand are supplied."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the stated rival of cataloging and labeling everything in place, dependency-gated tiering, reversible quarantine, tested restoration, and accountable disposition plausibly add active-storage bounding and retirement capability; realized advantage remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The integration is coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet does not distinguish it from model registries, experiment tracking, records schedules, or artifact-store lifecycle controls."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal uses bounded registry, metadata, access-control, storage-tier, quarantine, audit-log, and restoration functions with explicit halt conditions; incomplete lineage and dependency metadata remain important implementation risks."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet identifies joint model-owner and records-or-risk authority, limits platform-operator discretion, protects holds, and defines rollback, although actual organizational willingness and review capacity are unknown."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"A 30-day shadow pilot on one model family and no more than 200 closed-run bundles is specified with owner review, reversible quarantine, full restoration testing, and intervention falsifiers; outcome thresholds still require preregistration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"Quarantine rather than destruction, tombstones, restoration of every quarantined bundle, hold protection, audit logging, and explicit halt-and-rollback triggers directly limit harm during initial testing."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Registry-driven rules and periodic revalidation could extend across recurring model families, but metadata quality, joint review workload, permanent exceptions, varied retention obligations, and restoration latency may constrain scale."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Prepare and execute the specified 30-day shadow pilot for one recurring model family and at most 200 closed-run bundles, including inventory, metadata normalization, owner review, reversible quarantine of at most 20 bundles, restoration tests, and results analysis.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing artifact stores and logs are accessible without major procurement.","No production workflow or current optimization decision is changed.","The model owner, records or risk reviewer, and platform staff can participate part-time.","Lineage gaps require manual review but not reconstruction of an entirely missing registry."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Implement a limited production-capable registry and lifecycle workflow for a small number of model families, including lineage ingestion, discovery-state changes, approvals, holds, dependency gates, quarantine, restoration automation, audit logging, and compliance review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing identity, object-storage, catalog, and backup capabilities can be integrated.","Hard deletion remains disabled during startup.","Retention rules are available or can be defined without extensive legal redesign.","Deployment does not require replacing the optimization platform."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch across a department or material portfolio of recurring optimization systems, including connectors, metadata remediation, governance design, user training, monitoring, recovery exercises, security and compliance validation, and evaluation against preregistered outcomes.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Multiple artifact stores and model families require integration.","Historical metadata quality varies and needs remediation.","Joint approval and exception-management workflows must be operationalized.","Existing cold-storage and recovery infrastructure can be reused."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate the lifecycle service, including storage and software, metadata monitoring, periodic classification review, exception and hold management, restore testing, audit support, incident response, and maintenance of integrations.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The deployment remains departmental rather than enterprise-wide.","Review is primarily exception-based after initial classification.","Cold-tier storage produces savings or capacity relief but no exact offset is assumed.","No unusually burdensome regulatory retention regime applies."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate defines observable stale discoverability, active-tier use, retention ambiguity, and reconstruction risks, but supplies no representative inventory or external evidence that these conditions occur materially in an adopter setting."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Model owners and records or risk owners are named as joint approvers, with platform operators as constrained executors and planners, auditors, and investigators as affected parties."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"Against cataloging and current-version labels while retaining artifacts in place, the proposal claims that gated tiering and reversible disposition will reduce ordinary-discovery exposure and projected active-tier use without unacceptable dependency misses, restoration failures, or reviewer disagreement."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a 30-day shadow pilot limited to one model family, 200 closed-run bundles, and 20 unanimously approved reversible quarantines, with restoration of every quarantined bundle and stated falsifiers."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step excludes hard deletion and decision changes, protects legal and investigation holds, requires joint authority, and mandates halt and rollback for dependency misses, consequential false classifications, hold violations, or restore failures."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal identifies the required registry, metadata, review, storage transitions, quarantine, restoration, logging, and governance components sufficiently to state broad resource bands, although local integration complexity remains uncertain."}},"blocking_evidence":["A representative inventory establishing whether stale discoverability, unbounded active storage, cleanup backlog, or retention ambiguity is materially present.","Operational definitions and decision thresholds for ordinary-discovery exposure, active-tier reduction, dependency coverage, restoration success, and acceptable reviewer agreement.","Evidence that available lineage and dependency metadata can support safe classification without disproportionate manual reconstruction.","A scoped prior-art comparison against model registries, experiment-tracking systems, records schedules, and artifact-store lifecycle controls.","Confirmation that model, records or risk, and platform owners accept the proposed joint-authority and exception-management workflow."],"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register thresholds, then run the authorized 30-day shadow comparison on one recurring model family and at most 200 closed-run bundles: compare current cataloging and retention-in-place with dependency-gated classification on stale exposure in ordinary discovery, projected active-tier use, reviewer agreement, dependency misses, hold compliance, and restoration success; quarantine no more than 20 unanimously approved orphaned bundles without destruction and restore all of them before close. Falsify advancement if the baseline problem is absent, neither target outcome improves, or any unacceptable dependency miss, hold violation, consequential false classification, or restoration failure occurs.","research_questions":["Does a representative inventory confirm that obsolete artifacts remain discoverable as current or consume material active-tier resources?","How often do reviewers disagree on supersession, retention class, dependency completeness, or permissible disposition?","What metadata coverage is necessary to make dependency gates reliable, and how much manual remediation is required?","Does reversible tiering outperform improved cataloging and current-version labels on stale exposure and active-tier use?","Can quarantined bundles be restored within locally acceptable time and with complete reconstructive inputs?","Which existing registry, experiment-tracking, records-management, or storage-lifecycle capabilities already provide the proposed controls?","Will joint model-owner and records-or-risk approval scale without creating a persistent review backlog?","Do cold-tier latency, destruction obligations, or permanent exceptions erase the proposed operational benefit?"],"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["No external evidence establishes problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, or savings.","World novelty and solution distinctiveness are unmeasured because prior art was not searched.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not quotes or point estimates.","The baseline and nearest rival are candidate-supplied descriptions rather than validated observations.","Technical feasibility depends on local lineage completeness, dependency visibility, storage capabilities, and retention obligations.","The 0-to-3-month horizon applies only to bounded first evidence, not broad operational adoption."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No conclusion is made about novelty, prevalence, competitive differentiation, or existing implementations. The packet explicitly leaves prior art unsearched; model registries, experiment tracking, records schedules, and artifact-store lifecycle controls are comparison categories named within the sealed input, not verified prior-art findings."}