{"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__organizational_management","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"organizational_management","title":"Authority-Gated Lifecycle Management for Obsolete Policies","opportunity_summary":"Add explicit current, superseded, archived, held, and quarantined lifecycle states to organizational policy artifacts, with owner review, retention and legal-hold controls, dependency checks, search demotion, auditability, and reversible retirement. The proposal could reduce obsolete-guidance exposure while preserving reconstructable history, but local problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, incremental effects, and distinctiveness remain unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"Policy and process owners are the operational adopters; records management defines disposition requirements, legal or compliance controls holds, and all relevant authorities must concur before irreversible destruction.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Following obsolete guidance and resolving contradictory artifacts could materially affect work quality, time, compliance, and accountability, but the sealed candidate supplies no evidence about frequency, severity, or affected population."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The proposal identifies employees, policy owners, records managers, and legal or compliance reviewers with plausible interests, but contains no observed requests, commitments, adoption behavior, or willingness to resource the intervention."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Unlike the stated current-policy portal rival, the proposal governs underlying artifact authority, retention, holds, dependencies, quarantine, and restoration; whether these additions improve retrieval or decisions is still untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The lifecycle composition is meaningfully differentiated from the stated portal comparator, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and distinctiveness relative to records-management, policy-governance, search, and knowledge-management practices is unknown."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Status metadata, search demotion, audit logs, access tiers, review workflows, and reversible quarantine are technically plausible components, although dependency discovery, informal copies, authorization integration, and reliable restoration may be difficult."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies the required authorities and preserves their decision rights, but adoption depends on sustained coordination among policy owners, records management, and legal or compliance functions, with no evidence that they will participate promptly."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate supplies a bounded population, eight-week window, portal comparator, outcome categories, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, exclusions, and rollback triggers; event definitions, denominators, attribution rules, and restoration criteria still require preregistration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Reversible quarantine, audit logs, holds, authority gating, and restoration preserve organizational memory while reducing current-authority exposure, though false classifications and missed dependencies could still suppress valid guidance."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Lifecycle states and review gates could transfer across policy families and repositories, but scale may be constrained by repository heterogeneity, unresolved ownership, dependency mapping, local interpretation, and recurring manual review."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"An eight-week shadow evaluation in one business unit covering two policy families and at most 30 artifacts, including inventory, labeling, portal comparison, measurement design, authority review, and reporting, without changing live authority states.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing repository access and staff are available.","Work is primarily part-time professional labor.","No new enterprise software or destructive disposition is required.","Sensitive-artifact review remains limited to the selected families."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"A production-capable deployment for one business unit, including metadata and workflow configuration, repository and search integration, role-based access, hold checks, audit logging, quarantine and restore testing, training, compliance review, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One principal repository and a limited number of integrations are involved.","Existing identity, search, records, and legal-hold systems can be extended.","Substantial custom dependency discovery is not required.","The organization accepts reversible quarantine rather than immediate deletion."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"1M_TO_5M","scope":"Multi-unit operational rollout across several policy families and repositories, including integrations, migration and inventory work, governance design, security and compliance validation, training, change management, launch support, and outcome evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The target is a medium-to-large organization with several repositories.","Local policy owners require coordinated onboarding.","Existing platforms can support lifecycle metadata and audit controls.","The scope excludes replacement of the enterprise content-management estate."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Annual operation after multi-unit launch, including owner review cycles, records and legal oversight, workflow administration, repository maintenance, audit sampling, restoration tests, support, training, and measurement.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Review remains partly manual.","Repository count and policy volume are moderate.","Software costs are incremental rather than a full platform license.","No unusually litigation-intensive hold-review workload is assumed."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate specifies an observable problem—dated or contradictory artifacts remain searchable without reliable authority status—and concrete consequences and a falsifier, although its local prevalence and magnitude still require measurement."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Policy owners, records management, and legal or compliance functions are explicitly assigned distinct lifecycle, disposition, and hold authorities."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that lifecycle governance will outperform a manually curated current-policy portal on obsolete retrieval or use, resolution time, unresolved stale artifacts, and safety outcomes."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate bounds the evaluation to one business unit, two policy families, at most 30 artifacts, eight weeks, a named portal comparator, reversible handling, falsifiers, and halt conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"Automatic deletion, age-only retirement, hold overrides, substantive policy changes, and removal with unresolved dependencies are excluded; disputed status, missed holds, broken references, unauthorized exposure, or failed restoration trigger rollback."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The bounded evidence step can be broadly costed, but production scope depends on unspecified repository count, artifact volume, integration quality, dependency mapping, organizational scale, and existing records and hold infrastructure."}},"blocking_evidence":["A bounded inventory must establish that obsolete or conflicting artifacts are materially discoverable, influence work, or remain unresolved because obligations and dependencies are unclear.","Observed stakeholder behavior must show that policy owners and required records, legal, or compliance authorities will review and maintain lifecycle states.","A controlled comparison must show improvement over the current-policy portal without missed holds, broken references, unauthorized exposure, or restoration failures.","Repository tests must establish adequate hold detection, dependency checking, access control, auditability, and restoration reliability.","External prior-art research must determine whether the full mechanism composition is distinct from existing records-management, policy-governance, enterprise-search, and knowledge-management practices.","Target-organization discovery must establish repository and integration scope sufficient to narrow deployment and recurring cost bands."],"next_evidence_step":"For eight weeks, conduct a preregistered shadow study in one business unit covering two policy families and at most 30 artifacts: inventory and label artifacts without changing live authority or search behavior, compare lifecycle-review classifications and retrieval tests against the existing current-policy portal, and stop advancement if no material obsolete population is found or if lifecycle review fails to improve obsolete-artifact identification and resolution without hold, dependency, authorization, or simulated-restoration failures.","research_questions":["How often are obsolete or conflicting artifacts retrieved, treated as authoritative, or retained because obligations and dependencies are uncertain?","Do employees consistently use a controlled current source, and are observed errors instead caused by ambiguity within current policy?","Does lifecycle review outperform the current-policy portal on obsolete retrieval or use, conflict-resolution time, and unresolved stale artifacts?","Can holds, live references, dependencies, access restrictions, and restoration requirements be detected reliably enough for safe quarantine?","Will policy owners and records, legal, and compliance authorities complete reviews and maintain status metadata over time?","How does the complete lifecycle composition compare with existing records-management, policy-governance, enterprise-search, and knowledge-management approaches?","What repository count, integration effort, policy volume, and recurring review workload characterize the intended adopter?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["The assessment is closed-book and uses no external evidence.","Problem prevalence, consequence magnitude, market size, and realized stakeholder demand are unmeasured.","Prior art is unsearched, so world novelty and competitive distinctiveness cannot be claimed.","Incremental benefit relative to the current-policy portal is hypothetical.","Retrieval events, obsolete-use attribution, denominators, unresolved-staleness counts, and restoration acceptance criteria are not yet fully defined.","Costs are broad resource-equivalent bands contingent on organizational scale, repositories, integrations, policy volume, and existing governance infrastructure.","Informal copies, oral practice, historical applicability, and socially interpreted authority may escape inventory and lifecycle labels."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet supports only structural differentiation from its stated manually curated current-policy portal. It provides no basis to claim novelty, rarity, prevalence, market position, or superiority relative to external records-management, policy-governance, enterprise-search, content-lifecycle, or knowledge-management practices."}