{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__organizational_management","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"organizational_management","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"obsolete_policy_and_procedure_accumulation","causal_lever_id":"explicit_policy_lifecycle_state_and_authority_gating","proposal":{"problem":"Organizations accumulate policies, procedures, templates, and exceptions whose contexts or owners have changed, yet obsolete versions remain discoverable and appear authoritative. Employees may follow conflicting guidance, while owners postpone cleanup because deletion could impair compliance, investigations, or reconstruction of past decisions.","actors_substrate":["employees seeking operational guidance","policy and process owners","records managers","legal and compliance reviewers","organizational knowledge repositories"],"observable_state":"Multiple dated or contradictory artifacts remain searchable without reliable current, superseded, archived, or held status; ownership and downstream dependencies are often unclear.","consequence":"Staff apply obsolete guidance, spend time resolving conflicts, and preserve growing policy clutter because safe retirement cannot be demonstrated.","affected_objective":"Provide unambiguous current guidance while preserving required organizational memory and accountability.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"sequential deposits","domain_realization":"Successive policy editions, procedures, templates, interpretations, and temporary exceptions are added to repositories.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"stale layers remain active by default","domain_realization":"Old artifacts remain searchable and visually authoritative after organizational conditions change.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"heterogeneous retention value","domain_realization":"Some artifacts need immediate supersession, while others retain evidentiary, legal, safety, or historical value.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"unsafe removal","domain_realization":"Deletion can break references, erase the basis of earlier decisions, or violate holds and retention obligations.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"bounded searchable stack","domain_realization":"Current guidance is separated from recoverable history so employees encounter the governing artifact first.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"layer_inventory_and_identity_map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Registry of policies, versions, owners, locations, and canonical identities."},{"component":"deposition_order_and_age_index","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Creation, effective, revision, and supersession dates."},{"component":"retention_policy_matrix","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Retention rules by policy and record class."},{"component":"decay_function_or_aging_rule","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Context-sensitive review-by rule; age prompts review but never alone authorizes deletion."},{"component":"expiration_trigger_definition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Review, supersession, owner departure, reorganization, or referenced-system change triggers."},{"component":"layer_value_and_risk_score","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Transparent triage of operational use, evidentiary value, sensitivity, and recreation cost."},{"component":"dependency_and_reconstruction_check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Check links, workflows, audits, training, and prior-decision reconstruction before removal."},{"component":"pruning_or_archival_pathway","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Refresh, supersede, quarantine, archive, compact, or approved destruction."},{"component":"preservation_exception_register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Named historical, safety, evidentiary, and business exceptions with owners."},{"component":"deletion_audit_and_rollback_window","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Recorded retirement decision and time-limited reversible quarantine."},{"component":"resource_budget_and_storage_tier","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Attention and search-visibility budget plus active and archival repository tiers."},{"component":"review_cadence_and_revalidation_loop","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Periodic owner attestation and exception revalidation."},{"component":"legal_hold_or_compliance_override","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Counsel- or compliance-issued disposal suspension."},{"component":"hot_warm_cold_access_state","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Current guidance, restricted reference history, and deep archive."},{"component":"orphan_layer_detection","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Identification of artifacts with no live workflow, reference, obligation, or owner."},{"component":"supersession_marker","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Visible withdrawn status and pointer to the governing successor."},{"component":"layer_compaction_candidate_flag","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flag redundant historical copies for a manifest-backed archival bundle."},{"component":"rehydration_or_restore_procedure","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Controlled restoration of archived artifacts with identity and metadata intact."},{"component":"deletion_impact_estimate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Estimate affected users, processes, references, and reconstruction loss."},{"component":"stale_context_detector","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Signals such as departed owner, broken references, conflicting successors, or changed organization."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"age_weighted_value_score","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Composite age discount risks false precision and can undervalue rarely used but binding policies; use explainable review signals instead.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal loss; transparent class rules and review triggers remain."},{"slug":"archive_restore_test","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Sample archived policy families and verify readable, attributable restoration and historical reconstruction.","counterfactual_removal":"Archive recoverability becomes an untested assumption."},{"slug":"cache_eviction_rule","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Access recency cannot determine policy authority or lawful disposition.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss; capacity-driven eviction is outside the causal chain."},{"slug":"dependency_safe_delete_check","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate destruction on live-reference and reconstruction checks, escalating incomplete dependency evidence.","counterfactual_removal":"Cleanup could silently break workflows, audits, or historical interpretation."},{"slug":"lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Demote superseded material from employee-facing search to controlled archival tiers.","counterfactual_removal":"Authority labels still help, but historical clutter remains costly and easily resurfaced."},{"slug":"log_rotation_and_cleanup_job","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Blind generational purging does not fit heterogeneous policy value and obligations.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss; policy disposition must be content- and obligation-aware."},{"slug":"retention_schedule","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Assign policy classes minimums, maximums, dispositions, exceptions, and holds.","counterfactual_removal":"Retirement lacks consistent authority and defaults back to indefinite retention."},{"slug":"soft_delete_quarantine_window","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Hide approved retired artifacts before destruction while preserving audited restoration.","counterfactual_removal":"A mistaken retirement becomes immediately irreversible, hard-gating safe piloting."},{"slug":"stale_layer_detection_dashboard","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Inventory artifacts and surface contextual staleness to accountable owners.","counterfactual_removal":"The organization cannot reliably identify or prioritize misleading active artifacts."},{"slug":"time_to_live_ttl_policy","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Convert TTL into a review-by lease or eligibility trigger, never automatic destruction.","counterfactual_removal":"Periodic sweeps can substitute, but stale temporary guidance persists longer."},{"slug":"tombstone_or_deletion_marker","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Leave a withdrawn marker with reason, date, and successor pointer.","counterfactual_removal":"Absence becomes ambiguous and old links may conceal deletion or revive stale copies."}],"causal_chain":["Inventory and context signals expose obsolete or conflicting artifacts.","Retention classes, holds, and owner review distinguish current authority from recoverable memory.","Supersession markers and access-tier demotion prevent retired guidance from masquerading as current.","Dependency checks and quarantine make approved cleanup reversible and accountable.","Employees encounter fewer obsolete authoritative artifacts while required history remains reconstructable."],"baseline":"Repository search plus irregular owner-led cleanup; old versions are renamed, moved, or retained indefinitely case by case.","nearest_rival":"Improve search ranking and maintain a manually curated current-policy portal without governing the lifecycle of underlying artifacts.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["employees subject to guidance","policy owners","records subjects","auditors and investigators","legal and compliance functions"],"decision_authority":"Policy owners may change authority status; records management sets disposition classes; legal or compliance controls holds; irreversible destruction requires their documented concurrence.","authorized_first_step":"In one business unit, inventory two policy families, label at most 30 artifacts, and compare lifecycle review with the current-policy portal for eight weeks; only approved items may enter reversible quarantine.","excluded_actions":["automatic hard deletion","age-only retirement","overriding a legal hold","changing substantive policy through metadata","removing artifacts with unresolved dependencies"],"halt_rollback":"Stop on a missed hold, broken live reference, disputed governing status, unauthorized exposure, or failed restore; restore quarantined artifacts and revert labels from the audit log."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Repository and workflow evidence could show that obsolete artifacts are rarely surfaced, employees consistently use one controlled source, and observed errors arise from ambiguous current policies rather than accumulated versions.","analogy_break":"Organizational policies are socially interpreted exercises of authority, not passive storage objects; an old artifact may remain binding for a past case, and informal copies or oral practice may escape the inventory.","failure_condition":"Lifecycle labels become another neglected layer, owners do not review flagged artifacts, or archival demotion hides material employees still need.","problem_falsifier":"A bounded inventory finds no material population of obsolete or conflicting artifacts that remains discoverable, influences work, or is retained because dependency and obligation status are uncertain.","intervention_falsifier":"Compared with the current-policy portal, the pilot does not reduce retrieval or use of obsolete guidance, resolution time, or unresolved stale artifacts, or it causes broken references, missed obligations, or failed restoration.","risks":["False stale classifications can suppress valid guidance.","Inventory may expose sensitive records or undocumented practices.","Quarantine may conflict with hard-deletion requirements.","Central lifecycle authority may displace legitimate local interpretation.","Metrics may reward deletion volume rather than decision quality."]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"MECHANISM_COMPOSITION","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":"Closed-book structural inference from the supplied archetype and organizational-domain packet; empirical prevalence and effect claims remain untested."}