{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__rhetoric","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"rhetoric","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"stale_rhetorical_asset_reuse","causal_lever_id":"active_authority_lifecycle_for_rhetorical_assets","proposal":{"problem":"A communications organization accumulates talking points, claim sheets, examples, rebuttals, speech modules, and audience briefs across campaigns. Superseded or context-bound material remains searchable beside current material and can be reused as though still accurate, approved, and suitable, while indiscriminate deletion would erase provenance, accountability, and historically necessary context.","actors_substrate":["speakers and writers who reuse rhetorical assets","communications editors and asset owners","fact-check, legal, compliance, and records staff","audiences affected by inaccurate or decontextualized claims","researchers or investigators needing historical reconstruction"],"observable_state":"The shared rhetorical repository contains multiple dated or contradictory versions without consistently visible validity, supersession, approval, dependency, or archival states; stale assets continue appearing in ordinary retrieval and drafts.","consequence":"Writers may repeat obsolete facts, withdrawn commitments, inappropriate examples, or outdated rebuttals, producing contradiction, credibility loss, avoidable harm, and review burden; ungoverned cleanup can instead destroy evidence of what was argued and why.","affected_objective":"Keep reusable persuasive material current and interpretable without sacrificing defensible historical reconstruction.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"sequential deposits with declining or context-dependent usefulness","domain_realization":"Successive campaigns and revisions deposit reusable claims, examples, rebuttals, and speech modules whose validity depends on facts, audience, occasion, and institutional position.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"stale layers masquerading as current guidance","domain_realization":"Repository search or copy-forward workflows can present superseded rhetorical assets without making their reduced authority salient.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"bounded active stack with differentiated disposition","domain_realization":"Assets move among approved-active, review-due, reference-only, archived, quarantined, and removed states rather than being simply kept or erased.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"dependency and reconstruction protection","domain_realization":"Before removal, reviewers check citations, linked drafts, approval records, public commitments, and investigation or historical needs.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"named exceptions and accountable deletion","domain_realization":"Legal holds, evidentiary value, public-interest history, and unresolved disputes override ordinary retirement, while disposition decisions remain recorded.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"}],"component_map":[{"component":"layer_inventory_and_identity_map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Canonical register of each claim, module, version, owner, and duplicate identity."},{"component":"deposition_order_and_age_index","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Creation, revision, approval, and last-validation dates for every asset."},{"component":"retention_policy_matrix","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Asset-class rules for active use, reference retention, archive, and removal."},{"component":"decay_function_or_aging_rule","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Review urgency rises with time and context change; age alone never proves invalidity."},{"component":"expiration_trigger_definition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Fact change, position change, campaign end, owner loss, or elapsed review interval triggers review or demotion."},{"component":"layer_value_and_risk_score","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Transparent prioritization using reuse, factual volatility, audience harm, evidentiary value, and review cost."},{"component":"dependency_and_reconstruction_check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Check citations, derivative drafts, approvals, commitments, and audit uses before removal."},{"component":"pruning_or_archival_pathway","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Refresh, supersede, demote, archive, quarantine, or remove."},{"component":"preservation_exception_register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Named, expiring exceptions for evidentiary, historical, safety, or contested material."},{"component":"deletion_audit_and_rollback_window","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Recorded soft removal with a time-limited restoration period."},{"component":"resource_budget_and_storage_tier","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Budget primarily governs review effort and search prominence, secondarily storage."},{"component":"review_cadence_and_revalidation_loop","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Owners periodically revalidate active assets and exception holds."},{"component":"legal_hold_or_compliance_override","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Authorized holds suspend destruction and preserve relevant context."},{"component":"hot_warm_cold_access_state","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Approved-active, limited-reference, and archive-only visibility states."},{"component":"orphan_layer_detection","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Find assets with no owner, live derivative, citation dependency, or preservation duty."},{"component":"supersession_marker","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Old assets visibly identify their approved successor and cannot appear current."},{"component":"layer_compaction_candidate_flag","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flag duplicative modules for a curated synthesis while retaining source lineage."},{"component":"rehydration_or_restore_procedure","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Authorized users can restore archived assets with metadata and links intact."},{"component":"deletion_impact_estimate","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Estimate affected drafts, audiences, obligations, and reconstruction loss."},{"component":"stale_context_detector","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Flag factual contradiction, broken citation, changed position, ended occasion, or departed owner."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"age_weighted_value_score","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use an explainable review-priority score; age increases scrutiny but cannot automatically reduce historical or evidentiary value.","counterfactual_removal":"Triage becomes slower but the lifecycle can still operate through class rules and manual review."},{"slug":"archive_restore_test","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Sample archived assets and verify retrieval, readability, provenance, and link reconstruction.","counterfactual_removal":"Archival remains possible, but recoverability becomes an untested assumption."},{"slug":"cache_eviction_rule","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Search prominence is not a fixed-capacity cache, and recent access is a poor proxy for rhetorical validity.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change; lifecycle decisions remain policy- and context-driven."},{"slug":"dependency_safe_delete_check","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate permanent removal on checks for derivatives, citations, approvals, commitments, and preservation obligations.","counterfactual_removal":"Deletion could silently break reconstruction or erase material still supporting live discourse."},{"slug":"lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Translate tiers into authority and visibility states, with archive storage as a secondary realization.","counterfactual_removal":"Stale assets would continue competing with approved assets unless destroyed, eliminating the key middle dispositions."},{"slug":"log_rotation_and_cleanup_job","disposition":"incompatible","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Rhetorical assets are heterogeneous and content-dependent, not a uniform append-only stream safely retired by generation number.","counterfactual_removal":"No material change; blind rotation would add risk."},{"slug":"retention_schedule","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Govern asset classes with active-review intervals, minimum archival periods, maximum retention where authorized, and holds.","counterfactual_removal":"Disposition would revert to inconsistent owner judgment with no authoritative exception rules."},{"slug":"soft_delete_quarantine_window","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Hide an asset from normal reuse before destruction and permit audited restoration during a risk-sized window.","counterfactual_removal":"Cleanup mistakes become immediately irreversible, hard-gating safe piloting."},{"slug":"stale_layer_detection_dashboard","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Inventory assets and surface semantic staleness signals for owner review without automatically changing status.","counterfactual_removal":"The organization lacks a systematic way to find misleading active material."},{"slug":"time_to_live_ttl_policy","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"TTL triggers revalidation or reference-only demotion, never automatic destruction of substantive rhetoric.","counterfactual_removal":"Event-driven review remains, but quietly aging assets receive less reliable attention."},{"slug":"tombstone_or_deletion_marker","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Leave a minimal marker stating removal or supersession and the successor, without retaining the sensitive substance unnecessarily.","counterfactual_removal":"Old links and memories cannot distinguish deletion from absence and may revive superseded material."}],"causal_chain":["Inventory and identity resolution expose the accumulated rhetorical asset stack.","Context-change and time-based signals identify assets needing review.","Authorized owners apply class policy, dependency checks, impact estimates, and preservation overrides.","Stale assets are refreshed, superseded, demoted from active retrieval, archived, quarantined, or removed.","Supersession markers and visibility tiers prevent obsolete assets from masquerading as current while preserving reconstruction paths.","Periodic review and restore tests reveal classification drift and archive failure."],"baseline":"Shared folders, wikis, and personal archives accumulate versions; writers rely on search, memory, filenames, and ad hoc owner warnings, while cleanup occurs sporadically or not at all.","nearest_rival":"A current-only curated messaging handbook maintained by editors. It improves active guidance but does not itself govern distributed historical assets, dependencies, holds, reversible deletion, or reconstruction.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["speakers and writers","asset owners and reviewers","people or groups described by the rhetoric","audiences receiving claims","legal, records, and historical stakeholders"],"decision_authority":"Asset owners may refresh or demote material; designated editorial governance approves active status; records or legal authorities control holds and permanent destruction; no automated score has final authority.","authorized_first_step":"Run a four-week, read-only pilot on 100 assets from one completed campaign: inventory them, generate stale signals, propose states, and compare reviewer judgments and draft-retrieval results without deleting or changing public material.","excluded_actions":["automatic hard deletion","automatic factual adjudication from a composite score","retroactive alteration of published discourse","removal of held, contested, or dependency-uncertain material","using archive status to conceal public accountability"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if any proposed demotion hides the only approved current asset, any dependency or hold is missed, affected reviewers cannot explain classifications, or retrieval of pilot assets degrades; restore prior visibility labels and preserve all originals."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The repository may already have reliable ownership, prominent version status, low stale-asset reuse, and inexpensive search; observed rhetorical failures may instead originate in deliberate strategy or inadequate fact-checking rather than accumulated layers.","analogy_break":"Rhetorical validity is not monotonic with age: an old argument can remain apt, while a new one can already be false. Meaning also changes across audiences and occasions, so mechanical decay cannot determine truth or fitness.","failure_condition":"The approach fails if context and dependencies cannot be represented well enough for reviewers to distinguish current, historically valuable, and unsafe-to-reuse assets, or if governance labels are routinely bypassed.","problem_falsifier":"In a blinded sample of recent drafting episodes, obsolete or context-mismatched repository assets are rarely retrieved or reused, and their presence does not measurably add contradiction, correction, search, or review burden relative to current assets.","intervention_falsifier":"Compared with the ordinary baseline, the bounded pilot does not reduce stale assets in draft search/results or reviewer correction time, or it increases missed-current-material and reconstruction failures beyond the predeclared tolerance.","risks":["False precision may convert disputed rhetorical judgment into an authoritative-looking score.","Demotion or deletion could conceal institutional history or inconvenient prior commitments.","Staleness detection may encode political or cultural bias about which claims remain valid.","Legal holds and privacy-driven destruction duties may conflict with rollback windows.","Extra labels and review queues may become another neglected layer.","Restricted archives may concentrate authority over historical interpretation."]},"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":0.82,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural transfer. Target-specific prevalence and effect claims remain hypotheses; the proposed first test changes labels only in simulation and preserves all originals."}