{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__architecture_urban_planning","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"architecture_urban_planning","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"stale_zoning_rule_accretion","causal_lever_id":"explicit_zoning_provision_lifecycle_gates","proposal":{"problem":"Municipal zoning codes can accumulate amendments, overlays, interim controls, exceptions, referenced plans, and superseded language without reliable lifecycle states. Provisions that no longer match present plans or conditions may remain apparently operative, while repeal is deferred because dependencies, vested interests, litigation history, and reconstruction needs are unclear.","actors_substrate":["municipal planning and zoning staff","city council or delegated zoning authority","municipal legal and records staff","property owners, tenants, developers, and neighborhood organizations","codified zoning text, maps, overlays, variances, interim controls, and referenced plans"],"observable_state":"A provision-level inventory would show rules with uncertain ownership or status, expired predicates, superseding instruments, unresolved cross-references, low current use, or retention exceptions, yet still presented alongside current operative rules.","consequence":"Users may apply conflicting or obsolete requirements, interpretation and review become slower, and periodic cleanup is either postponed or risks erasing legally significant history.","affected_objective":"Keep the zoning regime current and interpretable while preserving lawful continuity, evidence, reliance interests, and historical reconstruction.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"sequential deposits","domain_realization":"Successive zoning amendments, overlays, interim controls, exceptions, map revisions, and incorporated plans form a temporal regulatory stack.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"stale layers remain active by default","domain_realization":"A provision lacking an explicit superseded, sunsetted, reference-only, or archived state can continue to appear authoritative.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"retention obligations and exceptions","domain_realization":"Litigation, vested-rights analysis, nonconforming-use history, statutory retention, and heritage value can require preservation beyond ordinary use.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"dependency-sensitive expiration","domain_realization":"Repeal or demotion must account for cross-references, permits, enforcement matters, mapped parcels, and successor provisions.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"differentiated disposition","domain_realization":"A rule may be reaffirmed, amended, sunsetted, marked superseded, consolidated, retained as reference-only, or archived rather than simply erased.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"bounded searchable stack","domain_realization":"Current operative law is separated from retrievable historical law and decision records.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"layer_inventory_and_identity_map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Provision-level registry linking text, maps, overlays, amendments, and identifiers."},{"component":"deposition_order_and_age_index","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Adoption, amendment, effective, and supersession dates."},{"component":"retention_policy_matrix","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Rule-class matrix specifying operative, review, reference, archival, and destruction constraints."},{"component":"decay_function_or_aging_rule","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Age raises review priority but never independently extinguishes legal effect."},{"component":"expiration_trigger_definition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Sunset date, plan replacement, predicate disappearance, or successor adoption triggers review."},{"component":"layer_value_and_risk_score","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Transparent triage score for current relevance, reliance, conflict, and preservation risk."},{"component":"dependency_and_reconstruction_check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Pre-disposition trace of citations, parcels, permits, cases, cross-references, and historical reconstruction paths."},{"component":"pruning_or_archival_pathway","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Council-authorized repeal or demotion to labeled historical archive."},{"component":"preservation_exception_register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Named exceptions for litigation, reliance, statutory, evidentiary, safety, or heritage needs."},{"component":"deletion_audit_and_rollback_window","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Decision log plus delayed effective date and correction window where legally available."},{"component":"resource_budget_and_storage_tier","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Budget for maintaining operative codification, reference collections, and durable archives."},{"component":"review_cadence_and_revalidation_loop","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Periodic review of flagged provisions, holds, dependencies, and lifecycle rules."},{"component":"legal_hold_or_compliance_override","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Municipal counsel blocks disposition during litigation, investigation, retention duty, or unresolved reliance."},{"component":"hot_warm_cold_access_state","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Operative, reference-only, and historical-archive access states with conspicuous labels."},{"component":"orphan_layer_detection","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Detection of provisions with no live citations, mapped application, permits, or other known dependents."},{"component":"supersession_marker","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Durable notice naming the successor instrument and relevant dates."},{"component":"layer_compaction_candidate_flag","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flag for legally reviewed consolidation of duplicative provisions without silently changing substance."},{"component":"rehydration_or_restore_procedure","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Procedure to retrieve historical text, maps, metadata, and crosswalks in usable form."},{"component":"deletion_impact_estimate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Estimate of affected parcels, proceedings, users, dependencies, and reconstruction loss."},{"component":"stale_context_detector","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flags provisions contradicted by successor plans, vanished predicates, broken references, or changed jurisdiction."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"age_weighted_value_score","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Used only to rank provisions for human review; age cannot determine legal validity, and weights remain visible.","counterfactual_removal":"The intervention remains viable but pilot sampling and prioritization become less systematic."},{"slug":"archive_restore_test","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Periodically reconstruct sampled historical text, maps, metadata, and cross-references.","counterfactual_removal":"Archival recoverability would be asserted rather than demonstrated."},{"slug":"cache_eviction_rule","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Access recency cannot authorize demotion or repeal of law under capacity pressure.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal or operational element changes."},{"slug":"dependency_safe_delete_check","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Disposition is blocked until known legal, parcel, permit, enforcement, and cross-reference dependencies are resolved or preserved.","counterfactual_removal":"Cleanup could sever operative or evidentiary relationships, hard-gating viability."},{"slug":"lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Tiering becomes separation among operative publication, reference access, and durable historical archive; it does not alter legal status itself.","counterfactual_removal":"Historical material could still be retained, but current and archival layers would remain harder to distinguish and maintain."},{"slug":"log_rotation_and_cleanup_job","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Generational position is too content-blind for zoning instruments with long-lived legal effects.","counterfactual_removal":"No selected causal chain changes."},{"slug":"retention_schedule","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Planning, legal, and records authorities define lifecycle rules by instrument class, including minimum retention and overrides.","counterfactual_removal":"Status decisions revert to ad hoc cleanup without consistent authority or exceptions."},{"slug":"soft_delete_quarantine_window","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Adapted to a public proposed-disposition stage, delayed effective date, preserved prior text, and correction path; it cannot promise reversal of accrued legal effects.","counterfactual_removal":"Errors would have less opportunity for discovery before status changes take effect."},{"slug":"stale_layer_detection_dashboard","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Creates the identity-resolved registry and evidence-backed review queue while leaving decisions to authorized officials.","counterfactual_removal":"Stale provisions remain distributed and lifecycle review lacks an actionable inventory."},{"slug":"time_to_live_ttl_policy","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Restricted to newly adopted temporary controls and similar instruments explicitly authorized to sunset; expiry otherwise triggers review, not automatic repeal.","counterfactual_removal":"Existing-code remediation survives, but future temporary-rule accumulation remains less bounded."},{"slug":"tombstone_or_deletion_marker","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"A durable supersession or repeal marker preserves identity, dates, authority, successor links, and historical location.","counterfactual_removal":"Absence becomes ambiguous and citations may resolve as though the provision never existed."}],"causal_chain":["Inventory provisions and assign inspectable identities and lifecycle states.","Detect stale-context signals and rank candidates without treating age as legal authority.","Apply class-based retention rules, holds, impact estimates, and inbound dependency checks.","Authorized officials choose reaffirmation, amendment, sunset, consolidation, reference-only status, or archive.","Publish supersession markers and preserve reconstructable historical materials.","Repeated review prevents obsolete provisions from silently returning to the operative stack."],"baseline":"Ordinary practice is reactive amendment plus occasional recodification: staff and counsel investigate conflicts case by case, while most provisions remain operative-looking until a formal cleanup project occurs.","nearest_rival":"A one-time comprehensive zoning-code rewrite or consolidation. It can reduce present complexity but lacks continuing provision-level expiry, exception revalidation, dependency gates, and archive-restoration controls.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["property owners and tenants","permit applicants and holders","developers and design professionals","neighborhood and heritage groups","planning, enforcement, legal, and records staff"],"decision_authority":"The planning department may inventory and recommend; municipal counsel validates legal constraints; only the city council or lawfully delegated zoning authority changes legal status through required public procedures.","authorized_first_step":"Run a 90-day shadow pilot on one overlay district or at most 100 provisions: create nonbinding lifecycle labels, trace dependencies, test archival restoration, and compare review performance without changing operative law.","excluded_actions":["automatic repeal based on age, score, access, or dashboard flag","destruction of official records or historical maps","status changes without notice, hearing, or other required procedure","overriding litigation holds, vested-rights analysis, or statutory retention","representing a shadow label as legally effective"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if any sampled dependency is missed, archive reconstruction fails, stakeholders cannot distinguish operative from historical text, or counsel finds unlawful automation. Remove shadow labels, retain the audit record, and leave official law unchanged."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The apparent accretion may be legally necessary rather than stale: historic provisions can remain essential to nonconforming uses, vested approvals, enforcement, and interpretation. Existing codification and legal research practices may already separate current from historical law sufficiently.","analogy_break":"Unlike disposable digital layers, zoning provisions create public authority and reliance interests; relocation or labeling cannot itself alter validity, and later rollback cannot undo every consequence of an erroneous repeal.","failure_condition":"The approach fails if lifecycle metadata becomes a parallel unofficial code, dependency discovery cannot cover external or tacit reliance, or review costs exceed the confusion it removes.","problem_falsifier":"A provision-level audit finds virtually no operative-looking superseded rules, broken references, uncertain statuses, or lifecycle-related review errors; observed delays instead arise from substantive policy conflict or staffing capacity.","intervention_falsifier":"Against ordinary review or a one-time consolidation, the bounded pilot does not improve time to identify controlling provisions or conflict detection, while producing material false-stale flags, missed dependencies, restoration failures, or user confusion.","risks":["A composite score may give political judgments false precision.","Lifecycle labels may be mistaken for legal status.","Automated staleness signals may disproportionately target older protections or historically layered neighborhoods.","Archival demotion may reduce practical access despite formal availability.","Consolidation may introduce unintended substantive change.","Published candidate lists may affect property expectations before lawful action."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"DOMAIN_TRANSFER","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","evidence_maturity":"HYPOTHESIS"},"revision_change_log":{"revision_kind":"ORIGINAL","prior_problem_id":null,"prior_causal_lever_id":null,"problem_changed":false,"causal_lever_changed":false,"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"repairs_addressed":[]},"confidence":0.86,"generator_notes":"The fit rests on treating zoning instruments and amendments as temporally deposited regulatory layers, not on treating buildings themselves as disposable layers. The proposal is conjectural and prior art was not searched."}