{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__philosophy","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"philosophy","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"superseded_argument_status_ambiguity","causal_lever_id":"explicit_dialectical_status_and_reversible_demotion","proposal":{"problem":"In long-running philosophical research programs, successive formulations of theses, premises, objections, and replies can remain equally discoverable after some have been retracted, superseded, answered, or made context-dependent. Readers may then treat historically important but dialectically inactive formulations as current positions, while simply removing them would erase argumentative genealogy and the dependencies needed to interpret later work. [INFERENCE]","actors_substrate":["philosophers maintaining research programs or scholarly editions","students, reviewers, and researchers reconstructing debates","theses, argument versions, premises, objections, replies, and citations","journals, archives, and philosophical knowledge bases"],"observable_state":"A sampled debate corpus contains multiple temporally ordered formulations lacking explicit current, superseded, answered, historical, or contested status; later arguments depend on earlier items whose status is unclear. [HYPOTHESIS]","consequence":"Search and criticism can target obsolete formulations, duplicate resolved objections, or overlook dependencies; unrecorded removal can make later arguments unintelligible. [HYPOTHESIS]","affected_objective":"Accurate, efficient, and historically accountable reconstruction of live philosophical positions and their dialectical development.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"sequential deposits","domain_realization":"successive versions of theses, arguments, objections, replies, and interpretive notes","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"active usefulness or validity changes","domain_realization":"a contribution becomes superseded, retracted, answered, context-bound, or merely historical without becoming meaningless","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"stale layers mistaken for current truth","domain_realization":"readers attribute an abandoned formulation to a philosopher or research program as its present view","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"dependency and reconstruction risk","domain_realization":"later arguments, distinctions, and citations presuppose earlier formulations even when those formulations are no longer dialectically active","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"differentiated expiration","domain_realization":"demote visibility, annotate, compact, archive, preserve by exception, or remove from the active index rather than erase source texts","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"bounded stack","domain_realization":"the current-position view remains interpretable while a recoverable historical record remains available","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"layer_inventory_and_identity_map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"canonical IDs for each thesis, argument, objection, reply, and version"},{"component":"deposition_order_and_age_index","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"publication and revision chronology"},{"component":"retention_policy_matrix","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"status rules by contribution class and editorial purpose"},{"component":"decay_function_or_aging_rule","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"review urgency rises with unreviewed time or contextual change, never with age alone"},{"component":"expiration_trigger_definition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"retraction, explicit supersession, decisive reply, broken presupposition, or scheduled review triggers reassessment"},{"component":"layer_value_and_risk_score","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"separate estimates of current relevance, historical value, dependency importance, and misattribution risk"},{"component":"dependency_and_reconstruction_check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"trace citations and argumentative dependencies before demotion or removal"},{"component":"pruning_or_archival_pathway","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"remove from current-position results while retaining an annotated historical path"},{"component":"preservation_exception_register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"named exceptions for canonical, contested, pedagogically important, or historically significant material"},{"component":"deletion_audit_and_rollback_window","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"logged, reversible removal from the active index"},{"component":"resource_budget_and_storage_tier","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"budgets for editorial attention and prominence rather than bytes alone"},{"component":"review_cadence_and_revalidation_loop","status":"direct","domain_realization":"periodic expert review of statuses and exceptions"},{"component":"legal_hold_or_compliance_override","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"archival, citation-integrity, contractual, or research-ethics override"},{"component":"hot_warm_cold_access_state","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"current, contextual, and historical discovery tiers"},{"component":"orphan_layer_detection","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"identify entries with no live citation, dependency, or documented historical role"},{"component":"supersession_marker","status":"direct","domain_realization":"explicit successor, retraction, or answered-by link"},{"component":"layer_compaction_candidate_flag","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"flag repetitive argument versions for a loss-aware synopsis linked to originals"},{"component":"rehydration_or_restore_procedure","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"restore archived material and its citation/dependency context"},{"component":"deletion_impact_estimate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"estimate affected interpretations, courses, citations, and downstream arguments"},{"component":"stale_context_detector","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"detect claims whose stated target, terminology, evidence, or presuppositions have changed"}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"age_weighted_value_score","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Age is not evidence of philosophical invalidity, and a composite score would conceal contestable judgments.","counterfactual_removal":"No material loss; multidimensional expert review remains."},{"slug":"archive_restore_test","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Sample archived arguments and verify restoration with readable text, metadata, and dependency links.","counterfactual_removal":"Archival recoverability would be asserted rather than tested."},{"slug":"cache_eviction_rule","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Recent access is a poor proxy for philosophical relevance or historical value.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal change."},{"slug":"dependency_safe_delete_check","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate active-index removal on citation and argumentative-dependency tracing.","counterfactual_removal":"Demotion could silently break reconstruction and interpretation."},{"slug":"lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Translate storage tiers into current, contextual, and historical visibility tiers.","counterfactual_removal":"Status could still work, but attention and search clutter would remain less bounded."},{"slug":"log_rotation_and_cleanup_job","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Blind generational disposal ignores content, dependency, and enduring philosophical value.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal change."},{"slug":"retention_schedule","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use an editorial status matrix with named preservation overrides, not mandatory destruction by age.","counterfactual_removal":"Disposition would revert toward inconsistent case-by-case judgment."},{"slug":"soft_delete_quarantine_window","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Make removal from current discovery reversible for a bounded review period.","counterfactual_removal":"Classification errors would become harder to correct safely."},{"slug":"stale_layer_detection_dashboard","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Inventory contributions and surface semantic-status conflicts for expert adjudication.","counterfactual_removal":"The ambiguous and misleading items targeted by the intervention would remain unidentified."},{"slug":"time_to_live_ttl_policy","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Philosophical claims have no defensible fixed lifetime; elapsed time may trigger review but not expiry.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss; scheduled review supplies the legitimate temporal trigger."},{"slug":"tombstone_or_deletion_marker","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Leave an explicit retracted, superseded-by, answered-by, or archived marker at the stable identity.","counterfactual_removal":"Absence would again be ambiguous and obsolete formulations could be revived or misattributed."}],"causal_chain":["Inventory and identity resolution expose distinct contribution versions.","Semantic and contextual checks nominate status-ambiguous items for expert review.","Experts assign explicit lifecycle states and successor relations under a published matrix.","Dependency checks and exceptions block unsafe demotion.","Visibility tiering and tombstones keep inactive formulations from masquerading as current while preserving genealogy.","Reversible quarantine and tested restoration protect correction and reconstruction.","Periodic revalidation prevents provisional classifications and exceptions from becoming permanent by neglect."],"baseline":"Ordinary scholarship relies on literature reviews, citation trails, author commentary, and reader judgment; obsolete and current formulations often coexist without a shared machine-readable dialectical status. [INFERENCE]","nearest_rival":"A comprehensive annotated bibliography or version history that preserves provenance but leaves every contribution equally active. It improves reconstruction but does not systematically prevent superseded formulations from competing with current ones.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["living authors and interpreters whose positions are represented","researchers and students relying on discovery results","editors, archivists, and institutions preserving the record"],"decision_authority":"A designated scholarly editor or plural review panel may change discovery status; authors can supply evidence but cannot erase the historical record unilaterally.","authorized_first_step":"In one bounded research program, sample 100 versioned claims or objections; independently label their status, pilot inventory and supersession markers on half, and compare current-position misclassification, review time, disagreement, and successful restoration over eight weeks.","excluded_actions":["destroying original publications or canonical source text","automatic validity judgments based on age, popularity, or citation frequency","silently rewriting an author's words or status","demoting contested material without recording rationale and appeal path"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if reviewers cannot reach acceptable agreement, dependency loss occurs, restoration fails, or misclassification rises; restore prior discovery states from the audit log and retain all source material."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Old philosophical formulations often remain substantively live, and disagreement about whether an objection is answered may itself be the philosophy; lifecycle labels could manufacture false closure or privilege an editorial orthodoxy.","analogy_break":"Unlike caches or logs, philosophical contributions do not predictably lose truth, relevance, or value with age, and their dependencies are frequently interpretive rather than enumerable.","failure_condition":"The proposal fails if status governance becomes a proxy for declaring truth, suppresses minority interpretations, or cannot preserve reconstructable argumentative context.","problem_falsifier":"A blinded audit of mature research programs finds that superseded-status ambiguity is rare, readers reliably distinguish historical from current formulations, and ambiguity causes no meaningful reconstruction or search burden.","intervention_falsifier":"Compared with the ordinary baseline, explicit statuses and visibility tiers do not reduce current-position misclassification or review time, or they increase interpretive error, exclusion, or failed reconstruction beyond a predeclared tolerance.","risks":["false closure of legitimately contested questions","editorial capture or canon reinforcement","semantic detectors encoding school-specific assumptions","lost context during synopsis or demotion","privacy, contractual, or citation-integrity conflicts in retained annotations","status labels acquiring unwarranted authority"]},"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":0.78,"generator_notes":"The fit depends on treating temporally ordered argument formulations and objections as the accumulated substrate, while explicitly rejecting age-based philosophical invalidation. The intervention governs dialectical status and discoverability, not truth or source preservation."}