{"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__psychology","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"psychology","title":"Explicit Lifecycle States for Longitudinal Psychological Formulations","opportunity_summary":"Test whether visible current, superseded, review-due, archived, and hold states can reduce mistaken reliance on stale psychological formulations while preserving provenance, urgent retrieval, clinically relevant history, and client rights. The mechanism and reversible evaluation are well specified, but the frequency of the problem, decision impact, stakeholder demand, comparative effectiveness, and distinctiveness are unverified hypotheses.","adopter_authorizer":"A healthcare or psychological-services organization would adopt the workflow; clinical governance and records/privacy officers would authorize policy, qualified treating clinicians would decide clinical supersession, legal or compliance staff would control holds, and clients would retain applicable access, correction, and contestation rights.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If stale formulations materially shape current assessment, risk judgment, or treatment, separating current authority from governed history could improve care and accountability. The affected decisions are consequential, although the packet does not establish problem prevalence or realized impact."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies clients, clinicians, supervisors, and governance staff who could benefit, but contains no direct evidence of demand, willingness to adopt, budget ownership, or dissatisfaction strong enough to offset added review work."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the sealed nearest rival of one-time chart cleanup, persistent lifecycle states, dependency gates, exceptions, revalidation, auditability, and restoration provide a clear testable mechanism for preventing stale material from regaining current authority. Comparative benefit remains unmeasured."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The psychology-specific combination of explicit formulation states, reversibility, dependency controls, and rights protections is coherent, but prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so distinctiveness cannot be rated favorably or unfavorably from the sealed packet."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Status labels, review queues, archival views, audit records, and rollback are technically plausible and the first test avoids deletion and automated diagnosis invalidation. Integration with record systems, access controls, holds, and urgent retrieval still requires organization-specific engineering."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate clearly allocates clinical, governance, privacy, legal, and client authority, making an authorized path identifiable. Feasibility is mixed because adoption requires coordination across several decision-makers and implementation of correction, contestation, hold, and access rights."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":5,"rationale":"The packet supplies a bounded population, staged audit and pilot, explicit baseline, measurable outcomes, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, excluded actions, halt conditions, and reversible rollback. This supports immediate non-live evidence collection despite the absence of current evidence."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"No-deletion testing, dependency checks, exceptions, holds, quarantine, restoration, urgent-access protection, audit copies, and explicit halting criteria provide substantial safeguards. They do not yet demonstrate that clinicians will avoid automation bias or missed safety-relevant history."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The mechanism could be repeated across longitudinal records, but scaling depends on local record architecture, clinical interpretation standards, review volume, legal obligations, training, and sustained human status maintenance, none of which are quantified."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design, governance review, secure data preparation, clinician review, analysis, and reporting for the proposed read-only audit of 50 closed or stable cases and a tightly controlled 20-case, eight-week non-deletion pilot if the audit passes.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One participating organization and one record platform","Existing authorized access and audit infrastructure can be used","Costs include clinical reviewer time, privacy and compliance coordination, data preparation, evaluation, and limited configuration","No permanent deletion, major platform procurement, or multi-site trial is included"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Single-organization production design and preparation, including policy development, workflow specification, record-system configuration, access controls, hold and exception handling, audit logging, testing, training materials, and validation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A medium-sized organization with an existing electronic record system","Configuration is possible without replacing the core record platform","Clinical, privacy, legal, security, and client-rights review are required","Historical records need selective inventory and mapping rather than full manual reclassification"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Controlled single-organization rollout to active clinical teams, including training, supervised migration, review-queue staffing, monitoring, incident response, evaluation, and rollback readiness.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is limited to one organization rather than a regional network","Human clinicians retain supersession authority","Urgent retrieval and existing historical access remain available","The band excludes broad retrospective review of every legacy record"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Ongoing clinical review queues, governance, client correction and contestation handling, legal holds, audits, training, software support, monitoring, revalidation, and incident investigation for one medium-sized organization.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Review remains materially human-mediated","Case and formulation volumes are not supplied","The organization maintains continuous privacy, compliance, and safety oversight","Core record-platform licensing is already funded"]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet describes a concrete observable stale-authority problem and a falsifier, but provides no empirical audit showing that uncontextualized older layers occur or measurably alter decisions in an actual setting."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The adopting organization and the separate clinical, governance, privacy, legal, and client authorities are explicitly identified."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"Persistent lifecycle states, dependency gates, exceptions, and revalidation are explicitly compared with ad hoc or one-time cleanup, with outcomes covering ambiguity, mistaken reliance, retrieval, agreement, missed history, and rights incidents."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A read-only audit of 50 closed or stable cases is bounded, reversible, decision-relevant, and linked to a stated problem falsifier before any prospective workflow change."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The proposal identifies authority, exclusions, halt triggers, and rollback, but actual authorization has not been obtained and proposed controls have not demonstrated prevention of missed safety history, privacy exposure, automation bias, or impairment of client rights."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The audit and pilot sizes are specified, allowing broad resource bands, but organization size, platform capabilities, record volume, staffing model, integration requirements, and compliance workload are absent."}},"blocking_evidence":["A read-only audit must establish that potentially stale, insufficiently contextualized formulation layers occur and measurably affect interpretation, search burden, or decisions.","Comparative testing must show reduced mistaken reliance or ambiguity without increased missed-history incidents, retrieval delay, reviewer disagreement, privacy events, or patient-rights incidents.","Qualified reviewers must demonstrate usable agreement about current, superseded, review-due, archived, and hold states without treating those states as clinical truth.","An adopting organization must confirm governance ownership, clinician capacity, privacy and legal compatibility, urgent-access handling, and client correction and contestation procedures.","Platform and workflow discovery must establish integration scope, review volume, and a credible organization-specific resource range."],"next_evidence_step":"Run the proposed blinded, read-only audit of 50 closed or stable cases before any live workflow change. Compare layers that lack explicit current status with layers already explicitly contextualized, measuring stale-current ambiguity, reviewer agreement, retrieval time, and any change in formulation, risk judgment, or treatment interpretation. Treat the problem as falsified if older layers are already adequately contextualized and their visibility produces no measurable difference; do not proceed to the 20-case prospective pilot unless a predefined problem signal is present.","research_questions":["How often do longitudinal psychological records contain older formulation layers whose current authority is genuinely ambiguous?","Does visibility of those layers alter formulation, risk judgment, treatment choice, search time, or error compared with explicitly contextualized history?","Can qualified reviewers assign lifecycle states reliably, and which disagreements require preservation of multiple interpretations?","Do lifecycle labels reduce mistaken reliance without increasing missed relevant history, urgent retrieval delay, automation bias, privacy exposure, or client-rights incidents?","What clinician workload, governance capacity, platform changes, and recurring review volume would adoption require?","Will clinicians, governance leaders, records/privacy officers, and clients accept the mechanism and its allocation of authority?","Does external prior-art research reveal equivalent formulation-lifecycle workflows or materially narrower room for incremental advantage?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book input contains no evidence of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, realized clinical impact, or adoption willingness.","Prior-art status is unsearched, so novelty and comparative distinctiveness are unmeasured.","All cost bands are low-confidence resource-equivalent estimates conditioned on a single medium-sized organization.","The nearest rival is a sealed conceptual comparator, not a verified description of current practice.","Safety controls, reviewer behavior, technical integration, legal compatibility, and client-rights performance remain untested.","No claim is made that age or low use alone indicates clinical staleness."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No external prior art, prevalence, market, effectiveness, or cost knowledge was used. The assessment treats the candidate's baseline and nearest rival only as sealed hypotheses and does not infer that explicit lifecycle states for psychological formulations are novel, rare, common, or absent from existing systems."}