{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"psychology","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"stale_longitudinal_case_formulations","causal_lever_id":"explicit_formulation_lifecycle_state","proposal":{"problem":"Longitudinal psychological records accumulate diagnoses, test interpretations, risk formulations, treatment hypotheses, and contextual notes that remain prominently active after evidence or circumstances change. Clinicians may then mistake historical formulations for current truth, while indiscriminate removal would erase clinically important history, accountability, and longitudinal interpretation.","actors_substrate":["clients or patients represented by the records","psychologists and other treating clinicians","clinical supervisors and records-governance staff","longitudinal assessment, formulation, and treatment-plan entries"],"observable_state":"Records contain older formulation layers that lack an explicit current, superseded, review-due, archived, or hold state; stale entries remain visible beside current guidance and continue to be copied into decisions.","consequence":"Outdated labels or hypotheses can continue shaping assessment and treatment, while uncertainty about dependencies and retention duties discourages cleanup or makes cleanup unsafe.","affected_objective":"Maintain an accurate, interpretable current psychological formulation without losing clinically necessary longitudinal history, patient rights, or auditability.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"sequential deposits outlive active validity","domain_realization":"Successive assessments, diagnoses, risk judgments, and treatment formulations persist as the client and evidence change.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"stale layers masquerade as current authority","domain_realization":"Unmarked historical entries remain prominent or are copied forward into current clinical reasoning.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"retention versus deletion tension","domain_realization":"Reducing obsolete clinical influence conflicts with preserving longitudinal patterns, evidentiary records, and legally required material.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"lifecycle governance over the stack","domain_realization":"Each formulation layer receives an inspectable status, review rule, dependency check, disposition, exception basis, and decision record.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"layer_inventory_and_identity_map","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Identity-resolved register of assessment, diagnosis, formulation, risk, and treatment-plan entries."},{"component":"deposition_order_and_age_index","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Creation, effective, review, and supersession dates ordered within the client timeline."},{"component":"retention_policy_matrix","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Rules by clinical-record class for active visibility, archival retention, and permitted destruction."},{"component":"decay_function_or_aging_rule","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Age raises review priority but never independently reduces clinical validity or authorizes deletion."},{"component":"expiration_trigger_definition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Elapsed review interval, changed circumstances, contradictory evidence, or treatment transition triggers reassessment."},{"component":"layer_value_and_risk_score","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Separate ratings for current relevance, longitudinal value, harm from prominent display, and loss impact."},{"component":"dependency_and_reconstruction_check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Check citations, active plans, risk histories, reports, and reconstruction needs before disposition."},{"component":"pruning_or_archival_pathway","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Refresh, supersede, demote from current view, archive, compact, or exceptionally destroy."},{"component":"preservation_exception_register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Named exceptions for safety, evidentiary, historical, research-consent, or contested-record needs."},{"component":"deletion_audit_and_rollback_window","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Reasoned disposition log plus recoverable quarantine before any permitted destruction."},{"component":"resource_budget_and_storage_tier","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Budget governs prominence and retrieval tier, not whether clinically required history exists."},{"component":"review_cadence_and_revalidation_loop","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Periodic multidisciplinary review of flagged layers, rules, holds, and restoration readiness."},{"component":"legal_hold_or_compliance_override","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Applicable record duties, litigation holds, and access or correction rights override routine disposition."},{"component":"hot_warm_cold_access_state","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Current formulation, accessible history, and restricted archive have distinct visibility and latency."},{"component":"orphan_layer_detection","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Identify entries with no live citation, care dependency, retention duty, or reconstruction role."},{"component":"supersession_marker","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Historical entry visibly states superseded, date, reason, and successor without rewriting history."},{"component":"layer_compaction_candidate_flag","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flag repetitive copied-forward material for a clinician-authored longitudinal summary retaining provenance."},{"component":"rehydration_or_restore_procedure","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Authorized procedure restores archived material with provenance and access controls intact."},{"component":"deletion_impact_estimate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Estimate clinical, legal, patient-rights, and reconstruction harm before removal."},{"component":"stale_context_detector","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flags contradiction, overdue review, copied-forward text, changed context, or departed evidentiary basis for human review."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"age_weighted_value_score","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject a single decayed score: age is a review cue, and collapsing clinical value and harm would create false precision.","counterfactual_removal":"Removal avoids score-driven clinical or deletion decisions; the causal chain remains intact through separate ratings."},{"slug":"archive_restore_test","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Periodically sample archived formulations and verify authorized, faithful, timely restoration.","counterfactual_removal":"Archival remains possible, but recoverability becomes an untested promise and safe demotion is less credible."},{"slug":"cache_eviction_rule","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Access recency cannot determine psychological-record importance; rare safety history may be crucial.","counterfactual_removal":"No material loss; tier movement is governed by clinical status and obligations instead."},{"slug":"dependency_safe_delete_check","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Trace live clinical, evidentiary, and reconstruction dependencies; incomplete visibility blocks destruction.","counterfactual_removal":"Disposition could sever treatment reasoning or longitudinal reconstruction, hard-gating viability."},{"slug":"lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Translate tiers into current-view prominence, accessible history, and restricted archive; do not auto-compact clinical meaning.","counterfactual_removal":"Stale entries could be labeled but would still compete visually with current formulations."},{"slug":"log_rotation_and_cleanup_job","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Generational position is too content-blind for heterogeneous clinical records.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss because disposition requires item-class and dependency judgment."},{"slug":"retention_schedule","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Govern record classes, exceptions, holds, minimums, maximums, and periodic rule review.","counterfactual_removal":"Cleanup lacks legitimate, consistent authority and exceptions can become hidden or arbitrary."},{"slug":"soft_delete_quarantine_window","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use two-phase removal only where destruction is authorized; size recovery time by impact.","counterfactual_removal":"A mistaken disposition becomes immediately irreversible, making even a pilot unsafe."},{"slug":"stale_layer_detection_dashboard","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Create an inventory and review queue based on contextual contradiction and status, with no automated clinical judgment.","counterfactual_removal":"The target layers remain invisible, so lifecycle review cannot reliably interrupt stale authority."},{"slug":"time_to_live_ttl_policy","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Replace self-executing expiry with review-due dates; fixed clocks cannot determine clinical validity or destruction.","counterfactual_removal":"The proposal loses automation but avoids blind expiry; boundedness comes from scheduled review."},{"slug":"tombstone_or_deletion_marker","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Prefer durable supersession or disposition markers identifying status, rationale, and successor while minimizing sensitive detail.","counterfactual_removal":"Absence becomes ambiguous and copied or referenced formulations may silently regain authority."}],"causal_chain":["Inventory and contextual signals expose formulation layers lacking a trustworthy current status.","Authorized reviewers distinguish current relevance, historical value, dependencies, obligations, and potential harm.","A visible supersession or archival state removes stale material from current-authority pathways without erasing provenance.","Dependency gates, exceptions, quarantine, and restoration checks preserve necessary history and reversibility.","Current decisions encounter clearer current formulations while governed history remains retrievable."],"baseline":"Clinicians append or copy forward entries; older material stays visible, and correction occurs ad hoc when someone notices a conflict.","nearest_rival":"A one-time clinician-led chart cleanup that edits current summaries but installs no persistent lifecycle states, dependency gates, exception register, or revalidation loop.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["clients or patients","treating clinicians","future care teams","people described in collateral material"],"decision_authority":"Clinical governance and records/privacy officers set policy; a qualified treating clinician decides clinical supersession; authorized legal or compliance staff control holds; clients retain applicable access, correction, and contestation rights.","authorized_first_step":"Run a read-only audit of 50 closed or stable cases, then prospectively pilot status labels and review queues for 20 cases over eight weeks; make no permanent deletions and compare stale-current ambiguity, retrieval time, reviewer agreement, and missed-history incidents with baseline.","excluded_actions":["automated diagnosis invalidation","age-only deletion","editing historical entries to conceal their original content","destruction during the first test","tiering that blocks urgent authorized access","using lifecycle status to deny care or patient rights"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if reviewers miss safety-relevant history, status labels are mistaken for clinical truth, unauthorized disclosure occurs, or urgent retrieval fails; remove pilot labels from active views, restore the prior display, and preserve an audit copy for investigation."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Historical diagnoses and discarded hypotheses can predict recurrence or explain prior treatment, and experienced clinicians may already interpret timestamps correctly; demotion could therefore hide more signal than it removes noise.","analogy_break":"Psychological formulations are interpretive, contested, and sometimes regain relevance; unlike disposable technical layers, age and low access do not imply decay, and lawful destruction may be unavailable.","failure_condition":"The lifecycle system becomes another authoritative label stack, hides minority clinical interpretations, or shifts effort to status maintenance without improving decisions.","problem_falsifier":"A blinded audit finds that potentially stale layers are already explicitly contextualized and that their visibility does not measurably alter formulation, risk judgment, treatment choice, search burden, or error.","intervention_falsifier":"Compared with baseline, the bounded pilot does not reduce mistaken reliance or search ambiguity, or it increases missed relevant history, retrieval delay, disagreement, or patient-rights incidents.","risks":["demoting valid but infrequently used safety history","automation bias from staleness flags","privacy exposure through inventories or tombstones","irreversible loss after an inadequate dependency search","institutional incentives using supersession to suppress contested accounts","unequal correction access for clients"]},"null_rationale":null,"classification":{"candidate_kind":"MECHANISM_ADAPTATION","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":0.82,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. Empirical effectiveness and prevalence claims are hypotheses; the candidate concerns lifecycle status of longitudinal psychological formulations, not automatic deletion of clinical records."}