{"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__sport_science","archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"sport_science","title":"Explicit lifecycle states for athlete decision artifacts","opportunity_summary":"Establish governed current, superseded, reference, archive, and quarantine states for athlete-specific performance artifacts so staff can distinguish decision-active material from historical evidence without indiscriminate deletion. The candidate is operationally testable and safety-conscious, but the frequency and consequence of stale-artifact selection, stakeholder demand, and differentiation from existing systems remain unsupported.","adopter_authorizer":"A club or federation data controller, with licensed clinical and research custodians retaining authority over records in their respective scopes and coaches acting only under delegated authority.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Preventing use of obsolete prescriptions or baselines could improve decision safety, timeliness, privacy control, and reconstruction, but the sealed candidate provides no evidence about how often stale artifacts affect decisions or cause material harm."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Several affected roles and burdens are identified, but no adopter request, observed willingness to change workflows, budget commitment, or demonstrated athlete or staff demand is supplied."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Unlike a manually maintained current summary, the proposal manages underlying artifact authority, dependencies, retention exceptions, archival, and restoration. Whether those additions outperform the simpler rival enough to justify their administrative burden is untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched, and the candidate itself acknowledges that existing systems may already provide authoritative plans, version history, access controls, and verification. Distinctiveness is therefore weakly supported."},"technical_implementability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Read-only labels and reversible archiving on one squad are technically plausible, but reliable identity resolution, semantic-staleness detection, hidden-dependency discovery, access control, and restoration remain substantial implementation uncertainties."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate clearly divides authority among data controllers, clinical custodians, research custodians, and delegated coaches, but coordinated approval and disputed ownership across those roles could impede adoption."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal supplies observable outcomes, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, an eight-week comparison, exclusions, and rollback triggers. Readiness falls short of the maximum because baseline incidence, measurement procedures, and decision thresholds are not yet established."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Dependency checks, reversible quarantine, restore testing, audit preservation, mandatory exceptions, and exclusions for clinical and other protected records directly reduce downside risk, although quarantine copies and incorrect labels can themselves create privacy or decision risk."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The lifecycle-state structure could be reused across squads and artifact classes, but semantic context, custodial authority, retention rules, integrations, and dependency mapping are likely to vary by organization and record class."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded retrospective decision audit for one squad covering the prior eight weeks, including artifact sampling, authority classification, stale-exposure and selection review, retrieval checks, staff reconciliation-time measurement, governance review, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing audit logs, folders, or decision records are sufficiently accessible for sampling.","The scope excludes clinical, safeguarding, investigation, and research-record disposition.","Internal staff and a data steward can participate without major system integration or new equipment."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Configure and validate the candidate's eight-week, one-squad nonclinical pilot, including inventory, read-only lifecycle labels, stewardship workflow, reversible archive controls, dependency review, access controls, training, and evaluation instrumentation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing platforms can represent labels and reversible archive states with configuration or limited integration.","Artifact volume is manageable for a one-squad inventory.","No hard deletion, clinical-record migration, or automated training decision is included."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Launch an organization-wide governed lifecycle service across multiple squads and performance artifact classes, including policy design, integrations, migration and identity resolution, role-based workflows, exception handling, restore testing, training, compliance review, and rollout evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The organization has several heterogeneous repositories and staff groups.","Clinical and research materials remain separately governed unless their custodians authorize inclusion.","Substantial manual review is required for legacy identities, ownership, and dependencies."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Annual stewardship, exception revalidation, archive and restore testing, access review, staff training, policy maintenance, system support, monitoring, and periodic outcome audits after launch.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The organization can reuse existing storage and athlete-management infrastructure.","A continuing part-time or small-team stewardship function is required.","Recurring costs exclude major platform replacement and large-scale clinical-record remediation."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate describes a concrete and auditable condition—contradictory artifacts presented as concurrently authoritative—but supplies no observed incidence, prevalence, or demonstrated contribution to errors, delay, privacy burden, or maintenance effort."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The organizational data controller is identified as lifecycle-policy authorizer, with clinical and research custodians controlling protected scopes and coaches limited to delegated coaching artifacts."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that explicit lifecycle states and governed demotion will reduce superseded-artifact selection, reconciliation time, and ambiguous active layers relative to informal date, filename, memory, and owner-confirmation practices, without degrading retrieval or reconstruction."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A representative one-squad audit can measure stale exposure and selection against the candidate's negligible-contribution problem falsifier before any live disposition, followed only if warranted by the specified reversible eight-week comparison."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate defines exclusions, custodial boundaries, halt conditions, and rollback, but organization-specific consent, privacy, dependency, and quarantine authority must still be confirmed before artifacts are labeled or archived."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The one-squad pilot supplies a bounded scope for an initial estimate, but repository count, artifact volume, platform capabilities, dependency complexity, staffing, and organization-wide integration requirements are unspecified."}},"blocking_evidence":["A representative audit showing that superseded artifacts are actually presented or selected and contribute non-negligibly to decision delay, error, privacy burden, or maintenance work.","Confirmation that current authority is materially ambiguous rather than already resolved through existing system controls and staff verification.","Evidence that artifact identities, owners, successors, and decision-relevant dependencies can be resolved with acceptable accuracy and effort.","Organization-specific approval for labeling, quarantine markers, retention handling, access controls, and restoration within consent and custodial boundaries.","Comparative evidence that lifecycle labeling and reversible archiving improve stale selection, reconciliation time, or active-layer count without harming correct access, retrieval, reconstruction, privacy, or staff workload."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a retrospective audit of one squad's prior eight weeks of nonclinical performance decisions: sample artifacts presented during decisions, independently classify whether each was current or superseded, and compare decisions exposed to ambiguous layers with decisions having unambiguous authority on selection errors and reconciliation time. Stop or deprioritize if superseded artifacts were rarely presented or selected and their measured contribution to delay, error, privacy burden, and maintenance effort was negligible.","research_questions":["How often are superseded artifacts presented, selected, or reconciled during actual athlete-management decisions?","Which artifact classes produce the greatest ambiguity or consequence, and which should remain outside lifecycle disposition?","How accurately and consistently can staff identify artifact identity, ownership, successor relationships, dependencies, and current authority?","Does the lifecycle workflow outperform a manually maintained current-athlete summary after accounting for stewardship time and label adherence?","What rates of incorrect current labels, false staleness flags, failed retrieval, failed restoration, or reconstruction loss occur?","Do existing platforms or organizational practices already provide materially equivalent lifecycle, authority, versioning, and archive controls?","What consent, privacy, clinical-custody, research-protocol, and retention constraints apply to labels, quarantine copies, and auditable markers?","Can the workflow scale beyond one squad without administrative burden displacing athlete-facing work?"] ,"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment with no external evidence of prevalence, realized impact, stakeholder demand, market size, or prior art.","The proposal is a hypothesis; no prospective effectiveness result is supplied.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on assumed scope, not observed vendor pricing or implementation data.","Clinical, safeguarding, investigation, and research-record disposition is excluded from the proposed pilot.","Semantic staleness cannot safely be inferred from artifact age or access frequency alone.","Staff compliance, authority resolution, platform capability, dependency visibility, and archive restoration are unverified."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED. This assessment does not claim that the lifecycle model, authority labeling, reversible archiving, or associated workflows are novel, uncommon, absent from athlete-management products, or superior to established practice."}