{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__religious_studies_theology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"religious_studies_theology","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"superseded_religious_guidance_masquerades_as_current","causal_lever_id":"explicit_lifecycle_states_for_normative_corpora","proposal":{"problem":"Digital corpora maintained by religious institutions can accumulate successive editions of doctrinal, ritual, ethical, or pastoral guidance without consistently distinguishing current, superseded, historically retained, and withdrawn documents. The independently recognizable problem is not old texts themselves, but obsolete institutional guidance remaining discoverable as though it still expressed the institution's current position.","actors_substrate":["adherents and clergy seeking current guidance","theologians, religious-studies scholars, and educators interpreting change over time","religious institutions and corpus curators","communities represented or governed by the documents","digital repositories, catalogs, search indexes, editions, statements, rulings, and ritual manuals"],"observable_state":"Search results and repository records contain multiple dated versions with missing or inconsistent status, successor links, review dates, authority metadata, and archival location; users select or cite a superseded item when asked for the current institutional position.","consequence":"HYPOTHESIS: users may apply or attribute obsolete guidance as current, while indiscriminate removal would erase evidence needed for historical interpretation, accountability, and study of doctrinal development.","affected_objective":"Make current-status guidance reliably identifiable while preserving historical layers, interpretive context, and reconstructable provenance.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"sequential deposits outlive active usefulness","domain_realization":"Successive editions, rulings, statements, translations, and ritual instructions remain indexed after later documents alter their current institutional status.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"stale layers masquerade as current truth or guidance","domain_realization":"HYPOTHESIS: absent status labels and successor links allow an authentic historical document to be mistaken for present guidance.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"deletion threatens auditability and interpretation","domain_realization":"Earlier texts remain necessary for citation, provenance, accountability, and reconstructing theological or institutional change.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"lifecycle governance differentiates active, archived, and removed states","domain_realization":"The corpus records current, under-review, superseded, withdrawn, archived, and restricted states without equating supersession with falsity or destruction.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"exceptions constrain ordinary cleanup","domain_realization":"Historical significance, litigation, safeguarding, donor restrictions, and community claims can require preservation or restricted access.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"layer_inventory_and_identity_map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Canonical registry of documents, editions, translations, identifiers, and duplicate manifestations."},{"component":"deposition_order_and_age_index","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Publication, revision, adoption, and supersession chronology."},{"component":"retention_policy_matrix","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Rules by document class for current display, review, archival preservation, restriction, and exceptional destruction."},{"component":"decay_function_or_aging_rule","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Age reduces confidence that an unlabeled item is still current; it does not reduce theological or historical worth."},{"component":"expiration_trigger_definition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Supersession, issuing-body dissolution, contradicted authority metadata, or a missed review date triggers status review rather than automatic deletion."},{"component":"layer_value_and_risk_score","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Separate indicators for current utility, historical significance, misapplication risk, sensitivity, and reconstruction value."},{"component":"dependency_and_reconstruction_check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Check citations, curricula, persistent links, translations, commentaries, and provenance chains before removal or relocation."},{"component":"pruning_or_archival_pathway","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Refresh metadata, mark superseded, archive, restrict, compact duplicate files, or exceptionally destroy."},{"component":"preservation_exception_register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Named, reviewable exceptions for historically significant, evidentiary, contested, or community-sensitive materials."},{"component":"deletion_audit_and_rollback_window","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Record authority and rationale, then quarantine recoverably before permanent destruction."},{"component":"resource_budget_and_storage_tier","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Allocate prominent indexed access, ordinary archive access, and controlled cold preservation according to demand and sensitivity."},{"component":"review_cadence_and_revalidation_loop","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Periodic curator and issuing-authority review of states, exceptions, links, and policy."},{"component":"legal_hold_or_compliance_override","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Litigation, safeguarding, privacy, records-law, or contractual holds override routine disposition."},{"component":"hot_warm_cold_access_state","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Current portal, searchable historical archive, and mediated restricted preservation tiers."},{"component":"orphan_layer_detection","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Identify files with no live citations, successor role, provenance dependency, or preservation obligation."},{"component":"supersession_marker","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Persistent banner and machine-readable link naming successor, status date, issuer, and rationale."},{"component":"layer_compaction_candidate_flag","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flag duplicate scans or manifestations for lossless consolidation while retaining edition-level identities."},{"component":"rehydration_or_restore_procedure","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Documented retrieval, format migration, integrity verification, and catalog reconnection process."},{"component":"deletion_impact_estimate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Estimate broken citations, affected audiences, lost provenance, sensitivity exposure, and irreversibility."},{"component":"stale_context_detector","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flag missing review dates, defunct issuers, contradictory successor records, broken references, and obsolete applicability metadata."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"age_weighted_value_score","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject a single decayed value score: age may increase historical or theological importance, and composite precision could conceal contested judgments.","counterfactual_removal":"No material loss; separate status, significance, risk, and sensitivity indicators are safer."},{"slug":"archive_restore_test","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Sample archived formats and age bands and prove retrieval, readability, integrity, and catalog reconnection.","counterfactual_removal":"Lifecycle labeling could still work, but archival preservation would be an unverified promise."},{"slug":"cache_eviction_rule","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"A fixed-capacity, access-recency victim rule is not a legitimate basis for demoting religious records.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss; access demand informs service tiers but cannot decide documentary authority or preservation."},{"slug":"dependency_safe_delete_check","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate relocation or deletion on live citation, provenance, translation, curriculum, and legal dependencies.","counterfactual_removal":"Cleanup could silently break scholarship, persistent references, and reconstruction."},{"slug":"lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Adapt hot/warm/cold tiers to current, historical, and mediated-access states; tiering never determines truth or authority.","counterfactual_removal":"Status control remains possible, but preservation and access costs may become less sustainable."},{"slug":"log_rotation_and_cleanup_job","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Blind generational disposal would erase unusually significant documents merely because newer deposits arrived.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss; corpus items require class and dependency-aware disposition."},{"slug":"retention_schedule","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Define document-class states, review periods, preservation duties, and named overrides; avoid routine destruction mandates where authority is unclear.","counterfactual_removal":"States and exceptions would revert to inconsistent curator discretion."},{"slug":"soft_delete_quarantine_window","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use two-phase removal with an impact-scaled recovery period, except where lawful immediate destruction is mandatory.","counterfactual_removal":"A mistaken disposition could become irreparable before affected parties detect it."},{"slug":"stale_layer_detection_dashboard","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Create an identity-resolved worklist of unlabeled, contradicted, or review-overdue records for accountable human adjudication.","counterfactual_removal":"The distributed stale corpus would remain invisible and lifecycle decisions would be unsystematic."},{"slug":"time_to_live_ttl_policy","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Reject self-executing expiry; use review-by dates because elapsed time alone cannot settle current authority or preservation value.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss; event- and review-triggered adjudication supplies expiration control without blind clocks."},{"slug":"tombstone_or_deletion_marker","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Leave a durable status record and successor link at the old identity even when public access changes.","counterfactual_removal":"Absence would be ambiguous, stale copies could resurface, and users could not resolve superseded citations."}],"causal_chain":["Inventory identity-resolved documents and detect missing or conflicting applicability context.","Authorized reviewers assign explicit lifecycle states under class-specific retention and exception rules.","Supersession markers and search presentation redirect current-status inquiries while preserving historical discovery.","Dependency gates, archival pathways, and quarantine prevent lifecycle action from destroying lineage or needed evidence.","Periodic review and restore tests reveal stale classifications, permanent exceptions, and unusable archives."],"baseline":"Ad hoc curator or webmaster updates: newer pages are posted, older authentic documents remain searchable, and corrections occur after confusion or complaints.","nearest_rival":"A current-documents landing page plus search-recency ranking, without document-level lifecycle states, persistent successor links, dependency checks, or archival governance.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["adherents and clergy","issuers and religious institutions","scholars, educators, and students","archivists and librarians","communities described, governed, or harmed by the records"],"decision_authority":"The corpus owner may declare only the current institutional status of its own documents; qualified archivists govern preservation, records or legal officers govern holds, and contested community-sensitive cases require affected-party review. No curator is authorized to declare a tradition's theological truth by lifecycle label.","authorized_first_step":"Run an eight-week, read-only pilot on 100 documents from two document classes. Add provisional current/superseded/uncertain banners and successor links without deleting or deindexing anything; measure correct current-document selection in predefined retrieval tasks, disputed classifications, broken dependencies, and curator time against the baseline.","excluded_actions":["bulk or automatic deletion","altering historical text","ranking traditions or doctrines as obsolete","cross-tradition authority claims","irreversible deindexing before dependency and preservation review","public release of restricted sensitive records"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if a label lacks documented issuing authority, breaks a live dependency, exposes restricted material, or produces unresolved affected-party objection. Remove provisional banners and restore the prior catalog snapshot; the pilot performs no destructive action."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Existing repositories may already separate current guidance from historical archives, users may reliably consult authoritative current portals, or documented misidentification may be too rare to justify added governance.","analogy_break":"Religious texts do not undergo monotonic value decay: old or superseded works may remain normatively authoritative to subcommunities, gain scholarly importance, or coexist under plural authorities. Archival demotion can also encode institutional power against contested or minoritized interpretations.","failure_condition":"The approach fails if status authority cannot be identified, plural applicability cannot be represented, archives are not independently preserved, or lifecycle labels themselves are read as judgments of theological truth.","problem_falsifier":"A representative inventory and retrieval study finds that superseded items are already consistently labeled and linked, users do not mistake them for current guidance, and stale layers cause no material search or interpretive burden.","intervention_falsifier":"Compared with the baseline, the bounded pilot does not improve correct current-document selection, or it increases misclassification, contested erasure, broken citations, restricted-data exposure, or curator burden beyond the preset tolerance.","risks":["Institutional status labels may suppress dissenting or minoritized histories.","False supersession claims may project centralized authority onto internally plural traditions.","Archiving may reduce practical discoverability even when preservation is nominal.","Sensitive records may remain exposed through quarantine or metadata.","Automated staleness signals may reproduce biased or incomplete catalogs."]},"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":0.84,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. Empirical prevalence and effect claims remain hypotheses; the candidate concerns lifecycle status within a corpus, not adjudication of religious truth."}