{"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Lifecycle States for Longitudinal Psychological Formulations","opportunity_summary":"Test whether visible current, superseded, review-due, archived, and hold states can reduce mistaken reliance on stale psychological formulations while preserving provenance, safety-relevant history, access, correction, contestation, and auditability. The candidate is a hypothesis; the sealed packet does not establish problem prevalence, effectiveness, adoption demand, or novelty.","adopter_authorizer":"A participating clinical service or health-system records program would adopt the workflow; clinical governance and records/privacy officers would authorize policy, qualified treating clinicians would decide clinical supersession, and authorized legal or compliance staff would control holds.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If stale formulations materially influence assessment, risk judgment, or treatment, separating current authority from governed history could improve clinical interpretation while preserving accountability. Impact remains conditional because the sealed candidate supplies no prevalence or outcome evidence."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies plausible concerns for clients, clinicians, supervisors, and records-governance staff, but provides no evidence of expressed demand, workflow priority, purchasing intent, or problem prevalence."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to the specified one-time chart cleanup, persistent lifecycle states, dependency gates, exceptions, holds, restoration checks, and revalidation directly address recurrence and reversibility. Whether these additions outperform ordinary contextual notes or current workflows remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The domain-specific combination of explicit authority states, reversible archival controls, and clinical dependency review is coherent, but prior art is unsearched and no distinctiveness claim has been externally verified."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Status labels, review queues, governed views, audit logs, and rollback are technically plausible without automatic deletion. Integration with record systems, permissions, urgent retrieval, and dependency representation could still be substantial."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet identifies the required clinical, governance, privacy, legal, and patient-rights authorities, but their divided control makes approval and operational ownership more complex than a single-owner workflow."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate specifies a bounded 50-case read-only audit and 20-case, eight-week reversible pilot with baseline comparison, measurable outcomes, falsifiers, exclusions, and halt criteria."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Dependency checks, holds, quarantine, audit copies, restoration, urgent-access protection, and a ban on first-test destruction create meaningful safeguards against hiding relevant history. Risks from automation bias, contested accounts, and privacy exposure remain."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A common lifecycle vocabulary and review queue could be replicated, but scaling depends on local record systems, legal duties, clinical specialties, staffing, and governance conventions that are not characterized in the packet."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and conduct the read-only audit of 50 closed or stable cases and the reversible eight-week pilot of status labels and review queues for 20 cases, including clinical review, governance, privacy review, measurement, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["One participating clinical organization supplies authorized staff and record access.","The pilot uses configuration or lightweight prototyping rather than production-scale record-system redevelopment.","No permanent deletion occurs.","Labor includes qualified clinician review, project coordination, compliance oversight, and evaluation."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Prepare a single-organization production deployment, including workflow design, role and permission rules, record-system integration, audit and rollback controls, policy development, training, testing, and initial migration or status review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment covers one organization rather than a multi-system network.","Existing record infrastructure can expose labels, queues, provenance, holds, and retrieval controls through configuration or bounded integration.","Historical records require selective review rather than comprehensive manual classification.","Security, privacy, legal, and patient-rights reviews are included."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch across a bounded clinical service or institution, including staffed review queues, phased activation, monitoring, incident response, training, quality assurance, and evaluation of missed-history and rights-related events.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is phased and retains the prior display as a rollback option.","Qualified clinicians remain responsible for supersession decisions.","Urgent authorized access and legal holds are tested before expansion.","The band excludes broad multi-institution standardization."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Operate and govern the lifecycle workflow at one bounded organization, including clinician review time, queue administration, audits, training refreshes, software support, access reviews, incident handling, and periodic revalidation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Case volume and review frequency are moderate but unspecified.","No autonomous diagnosis invalidation or mass retrospective relabeling is performed.","Existing compliance and clinical-governance teams absorb part of the oversight.","Major vendor licensing or custom-platform replacement is not required."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet defines an observable and falsifiable stale-formulation problem, but supplies no external evidence that it occurs often enough or measurably changes decisions."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate explicitly identifies clinical governance, records/privacy officers, qualified treating clinicians, legal or compliance staff, and applicable client rights, with differentiated authority."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal can be tested against the specified append-and-copy-forward baseline or one-time cleanup for reduced mistaken reliance and ambiguity without increased missed history, delay, disagreement, or rights incidents."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A 50-case read-only audit followed by a 20-case, eight-week reversible pilot is explicitly bounded, measurable, non-destructive, and governed by halt criteria."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The proposal supplies authority boundaries, exclusions, rollback, and safety triggers, but real permissions, legal retention duties, urgent-access performance, privacy controls, and patient-rights procedures require partner verification before live use."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The functional scope can be bounded, but record-system integration effort, historical review volume, staffing, licensing, and institution-specific compliance costs are not established by the sealed candidate."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether potentially stale formulation layers are already adequately contextualized in ordinary records.","Whether visible historical formulations measurably alter formulation, risk judgment, treatment choice, search burden, or error.","Whether lifecycle labels reduce mistaken reliance or ambiguity compared with the existing display and one-time cleanup.","Whether labels increase missed safety-relevant history, retrieval delay, reviewer disagreement, automation bias, privacy exposure, or patient-rights incidents.","Whether reviewers can apply lifecycle states reliably to interpretive or contested formulations.","Whether local record systems and governance processes can support permissions, holds, provenance, urgent retrieval, rollback, and contestation at an acceptable resource burden.","Whether comparable lifecycle-management approaches already exist; prior art is unsearched and unverified."],"next_evidence_step":"With an authorized clinical partner, conduct the specified read-only audit of 50 closed or stable cases using blinded reviewers to compare current record views with independently contextualized assessments of which layers remain clinically authoritative. Falsify the problem claim if potentially stale layers are already explicit and their visibility does not alter judgment, search burden, or error. Only if that threshold is met, run the reversible 20-case, eight-week pilot comparing status-labelled review queues with baseline views; make no permanent deletions and halt for missed safety history, urgent-retrieval failure, unauthorized disclosure, label-as-truth errors, or rights incidents.","research_questions":["How often do longitudinal records contain formulation layers whose current authority is ambiguous?","Does that ambiguity measurably affect risk judgment, treatment selection, formulation quality, search time, or error?","What lifecycle vocabulary produces adequate reviewer agreement without implying that a status label is clinical truth?","How does the intervention compare with better-written current summaries, ordinary contextual notes, or a one-time cleanup?","Can dependency checks reliably preserve diagnoses, hypotheses, and contextual history that may regain relevance?","What permissions, retention rules, legal holds, access rights, correction mechanisms, and contestation procedures apply at a partner organization?","Does the workflow create unequal correction access or enable suppression of contested clinical accounts?","What integration, review workload, training, and recurring governance resources are required?","What relevant prior art or existing practice exists, given that it has not been searched or verified?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment with no external sources.","Problem prevalence and realized clinical impact are unmeasured.","Stakeholder demand and adoption willingness are unmeasured.","World novelty and prior art are unmeasured.","Costs are broad resource-equivalent bands based on stated scope assumptions, not vendor quotes or point estimates.","Legal, privacy, retention, access, correction, and contestation requirements vary and are not verified here.","The candidate concerns lifecycle status and governed display, not automatic expiry or deletion of clinical records.","Interpretive formulations may regain relevance, so age or low access cannot serve as a decay rule."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is unsearched and unverified in this closed-book assessment; no claim is made about novelty, prevalence, existing products, standard practice, or comparative market position."}