{"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__rhetoric","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"rhetoric","title":"Active authority lifecycle for reusable rhetorical assets","opportunity_summary":"Test whether explicit lifecycle states, supersession markers, preservation controls, and retrieval tiers can reduce reuse of obsolete or context-mismatched rhetorical assets while retaining provenance and historical reconstruction. The candidate is well specified and safely testable, but the prevalence of the problem, causal contribution to drafting failures, operational effectiveness, and separation from existing content-governance practices remain unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"A communications organization would adopt the workflow; asset owners could refresh or demote material, designated editorial governance would authorize active status, and records or legal authorities would control holds and permanent destruction.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the stated failure occurs, preventing reuse of obsolete facts, withdrawn commitments, and context-inappropriate examples could reduce contradiction, credibility loss, harm, and review burden while preserving accountability. A score of 5 is not supported because the frequency and magnitude of these failures are unknown."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies plausible beneficiaries and responsible parties, including writers, editors, fact-checkers, legal staff, records staff, and historical investigators. It provides no evidence that these stakeholders currently prioritize the problem, seek a solution, or would accept the added review work."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":4,"rationale":"Relative to search, filenames, owner warnings, sporadic cleanup, and a current-only handbook, the proposal adds distributed supersession states, dependency and hold checks, reversible demotion, archival reconstruction, and restore testing. Whether those additions improve outcomes enough to justify their burden remains untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The integrated application to rhetorical assets is coherent, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and may overlap substantially with message governance, content lifecycle management, digital asset management, records retention, or knowledge-base deprecation."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A read-only inventory, stale-signal generation, proposed classifications, and simulated retrieval comparison on 100 assets appear technically bounded. Broader implementation could be difficult because rhetorical fitness is context-dependent and dependencies, holds, and audience suitability may resist reliable representation."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate assigns distinct authority to asset owners, editorial governance, and records or legal staff, denies final authority to automated scores, and supplies halt and rollback rules. Feasibility is not fully established because cross-functional coordination, disputed classifications, and routine compliance with labels have not been tested."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The four-week read-only test specifies a 100-asset scope, one completed campaign, baseline comparison, reviewer judgments, retrieval outcomes, and separate problem and intervention falsifiers. Exact sampling, outcome definitions, and acceptable error tolerances still need preregistration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":5,"rationale":"The proposal explicitly preserves originals, protects held and dependency-uncertain material, prohibits automatic deletion and retroactive alteration, supports rollback, and retains reconstruction paths. These controls directly address the central risk that cleanup could erase accountability or institutional history."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Lifecycle labels and visibility tiers could generalize across campaigns and repositories, but context-sensitive review, ownership resolution, dependency mapping, legal holds, archive testing, and neglected review queues may create substantial recurring human work."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A four-week read-only assessment of 100 assets from one completed campaign, including inventory, identity resolution, stale-signal generation, reviewer classification, baseline retrieval comparison, and results analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing repository access can be granted without procuring a new enterprise platform.","The sample is limited to one completed campaign and all originals remain unchanged.","Editorial, records, legal, and evaluation labor is included as resource-equivalent cost.","No extensive historical reconstruction or custom integration is required."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and configure lifecycle metadata, ownership rules, approval workflows, preservation and hold controls, repository integrations, audit records, training, and an initial asset migration beyond the pilot.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment begins within one communications organization using a manageable number of repositories.","Existing content systems can expose metadata and retrieval controls through configuration or ordinary integration.","Permanent deletion remains out of scope until governance and legal requirements are resolved.","Manual review is used for disputed or context-dependent classifications."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch across multiple campaigns or teams, including broader inventory and identity resolution, workflow integration, policy and compliance review, migration, user training, monitoring, restore tests, and effectiveness evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The organization has a substantial but not multinational-enterprise-scale rhetorical asset estate.","Several editorial, legal, records, and technical teams must coordinate.","Historical assets require selective review rather than complete item-by-item adjudication.","No major replacement of the underlying repository platform is necessary."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing ownership review, stale-signal triage, exception and hold handling, archive and restore testing, policy maintenance, user support, monitoring, and periodic outcome evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Most assets can follow class-level policies while contested cases receive human review.","Review volume remains bounded and labels are integrated into ordinary editorial work.","Software licensing or hosting is incremental rather than a full repository replacement.","The organization periodically audits bypass, missed dependencies, and classification drift."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate describes a recognizable and observable repository condition—dated or contradictory versions lacking visible validity, supersession, approval, dependency, or archival states—and supplies a direct falsifier. Its prevalence is unverified, but the problem itself is externally testable."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The adopting organization and relevant authorities are identified: communications teams, asset owners, editorial governance, and records or legal authorities with differentiated decision rights."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that lifecycle states and retrieval demotion can outperform ordinary repository practice and a current-only handbook by reducing stale retrieval and correction burden without increasing missed-current or reconstruction failures."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a four-week, read-only test on 100 assets from one completed campaign, with no deletion or change to public material and with baseline retrieval and reviewer comparisons."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the bounded test, originals are preserved, automated scores lack final authority, deletion and retroactive alteration are excluded, and explicit halt conditions cover missed holds, dependencies, current assets, explainability, and retrieval degradation."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The pilot and prospective deployment activities are sufficiently bounded to assign broad resource-equivalent bands, although repository scale, integration complexity, and recurring review volume keep confidence moderate to low."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether stale or context-mismatched repository assets are retrieved or reused often enough to create measurable contradiction, correction, search, or review burden.","Whether repository accumulation is a material cause of rhetorical failures rather than deliberate strategy, weak fact-checking, or another process failure.","Whether reviewers can classify current, historically valuable, contested, and unsafe-to-reuse assets consistently while detecting dependencies and holds.","Whether simulated lifecycle states reduce stale retrieval or correction time without exceeding a predeclared tolerance for missed-current material or reconstruction failure.","Whether users follow lifecycle labels in ordinary drafting rather than bypassing them or allowing review queues to become another stale layer.","How the proposal differs operationally from existing content-lifecycle, message-governance, records-retention, digital-asset-management, and knowledge-base practices.","The labor, integration, compliance, and recurring review burden at repository-wide scale."],"next_evidence_step":"Run the proposed four-week read-only study on 100 assets from one completed campaign. Compare ordinary baseline search and drafting retrieval with simulated lifecycle-state and demotion results, using blinded reviewer judgments where feasible; measure stale-result exposure, correction time, missed-current material, missed holds or dependencies, classification agreement, and reconstruction success. Falsify the intervention claim if it does not reduce stale retrieval or reviewer correction time, or if missed-current and reconstruction failures exceed a predeclared tolerance.","research_questions":["In recent drafting episodes, how often are obsolete or context-mismatched repository assets retrieved or reused, and what measurable burden follows?","Can reviewers apply the proposed lifecycle states consistently across old-but-valid, new-but-invalid, contested, held, and audience-specific material?","Which stale signals add useful recall without creating authoritative-looking false precision or systematic political and cultural bias?","Do lifecycle states and retrieval tiers outperform ordinary search and a current-only handbook on both drafting safety and historical reconstruction?","What ownership, review volume, integration effort, and compliance obligations determine sustainable operating cost?","Which elements are genuinely incremental to existing message-governance, content-lifecycle, digital-asset-management, records-retention, or knowledge-base practices?","How frequently are labels bypassed, dependencies missed, archives unrecoverable, or review queues neglected after launch?"] ,"recommendation":"PILOT_NOW","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no evidence about problem prevalence, market size, stakeholder demand, or realized impact.","Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty and distinctiveness cannot be established.","Rhetorical validity does not decay monotonically with age and may vary by audience, occasion, strategy, and interpretation.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not observed prices or quotations.","Technical feasibility is strongest for the bounded read-only test and less certain for organization-wide dependency mapping, governance, and retrieval integration.","Safety depends on human authority, preservation controls, successful hold detection, and adherence to the stated exclusions."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"No conclusion is made about novelty, prevalence, market adoption, realized effectiveness, or exact cost. The assessment only compares the proposal with the baseline and nearest rival stated in the sealed packet; external message-governance, content-lifecycle, digital-asset-management, records-retention, archival, and knowledge-base practices remain unsearched."}