{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__speech_language_pathology","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"archetype_slug":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management","domain_slug":"speech_language_pathology","decision":"CANDIDATE","problem_id":"stale_dysphagia_guidance_across_longitudinal_records","causal_lever_id":"explicit_lifecycle_for_swallowing_recommendations","proposal":{"problem":"Longitudinal records can retain multiple generations of dysphagia diet, liquid-consistency, supervision, and aspiration-precaution guidance after reassessment or care transitions. When obsolete guidance remains discoverable without an explicit current, superseded, or archived state, clinicians and caregivers may follow the wrong generation; indiscriminate removal would erase clinical lineage and evidence.","actors_substrate":["patients with dysphagia","speech-language pathologists","physicians, nurses, dietitians, and caregivers","longitudinal EHR notes, orders, handoffs, and patient instructions","health-information-management and compliance staff"],"observable_state":"For one patient, conflicting swallowing recommendations coexist across active-facing records; older guidance lacks a conspicuous supersession state, while users must infer authority from dates and document types.","consequence":"A stale recommendation may be copied forward or acted upon, while uncertainty about retention obligations prevents reliable cleanup or demotion.","affected_objective":"Deliver the currently authorized swallowing plan without losing clinical history, accountability, or recoverability.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"sequential deposits with changing validity","domain_realization":"Repeated evaluations, orders, notes, handoffs, and discharge instructions deposit successive swallowing recommendations whose applicability changes after reassessment or transition.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"stale layers masquerade as current","domain_realization":"Undifferentiated historical recommendations can remain visible and be mistaken for current instructions.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"},{"archetype_element":"retention versus safe retirement","domain_realization":"Historical clinical reasoning may require preservation even when its recommendations should no longer guide care.","claim_kind":"INFERENCE"},{"archetype_element":"governed lifecycle and reversible disposition","domain_realization":"Each recommendation generation receives an identity, effective interval, authority, supersession link, access state, exception status, and reversible archival path.","claim_kind":"HYPOTHESIS"}],"component_map":[{"component":"layer_inventory_and_identity_map","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Registry of recommendation generations across notes, orders, handoffs, and instructions."},{"component":"deposition_order_and_age_index","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Authored, effective, reviewed, and superseded timestamps."},{"component":"retention_policy_matrix","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Rules by clinical-document and derived-display class."},{"component":"decay_function_or_aging_rule","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Age lowers review priority only when combined with reassessment and context change."},{"component":"expiration_trigger_definition","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"New assessment, discharge, setting change, or review deadline triggers revalidation."},{"component":"layer_value_and_risk_score","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Rank by current-use evidence, provenance, conflict severity, and harm if misapplied."},{"component":"dependency_and_reconstruction_check","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Check orders, care plans, handoffs, patient materials, and lineage before demotion."},{"component":"pruning_or_archival_pathway","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Remove from current-facing views while retaining governed historical access."},{"component":"preservation_exception_register","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Named evidentiary, legal, safety, or unresolved-dispute exceptions."},{"component":"deletion_audit_and_rollback_window","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Audited reversible suppression before any permitted destruction."},{"component":"resource_budget_and_storage_tier","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Current-facing versus historical access budget, emphasizing attention rather than bytes."},{"component":"review_cadence_and_revalidation_loop","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Periodic owner review and event-triggered revalidation."},{"component":"legal_hold_or_compliance_override","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Records obligations override routine disposition."},{"component":"hot_warm_cold_access_state","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Current, recently superseded, and historical visibility tiers."},{"component":"orphan_layer_detection","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Detect derived guidance no active workflow or current plan references."},{"component":"supersession_marker","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Visible marker linking obsolete guidance to its successor."},{"component":"layer_compaction_candidate_flag","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Flag repetitive copied-forward displays for a lineage-preserving summary."},{"component":"rehydration_or_restore_procedure","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Authorized recovery of archived recommendations and context."},{"component":"deletion_impact_estimate","status":"direct","domain_realization":"Estimate affected users, unresolved references, and reconstruction loss."},{"component":"stale_context_detector","status":"adapted","domain_realization":"Detect conflict with newer assessment, changed setting, or ended episode."}],"mechanism_dispositions":[{"slug":"age_weighted_value_score","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"TEST_DESIGN","adaptation_or_rejection":"Use only to rank human review; clinical risk and authoritative supersession veto age discounting.","counterfactual_removal":"Pilot remains viable but loses reproducible review prioritization."},{"slug":"archive_restore_test","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Sample archived recommendation histories and verify readable, contextualized restoration.","counterfactual_removal":"Archival could silently defeat reconstruction, hard-gating safe demotion."},{"slug":"cache_eviction_rule","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Access recency cannot determine clinical authority or retention.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal or viability change."},{"slug":"dependency_safe_delete_check","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Gate suppression or destruction on live-reference and lineage checks.","counterfactual_removal":"Disposition could strand workflows or erase reconstruction paths."},{"slug":"lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Tier visibility into current, superseded, and historical access rather than primarily physical storage.","counterfactual_removal":"Stale guidance continues competing with current guidance."},{"slug":"log_rotation_and_cleanup_job","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Blind generational rotation ignores clinical significance and record obligations.","counterfactual_removal":"No causal or viability change."},{"slug":"retention_schedule","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Govern document classes, preservation exceptions, and holds; do not infer legal periods.","counterfactual_removal":"Disposition lacks defensible authority and exception handling."},{"slug":"soft_delete_quarantine_window","disposition":"selected_supporting","contribution_type":"SAFETY_GUARDRAIL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Apply reversible suppression to eligible derived displays; source records remain governed.","counterfactual_removal":"Errors become harder to reverse, narrowing safe automation."},{"slug":"stale_layer_detection_dashboard","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"OPERATIONAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Surface patient-level conflicts, owners, provenance, and lifecycle state without acting automatically.","counterfactual_removal":"The distributed conflict set is not reliably discoverable."},{"slug":"time_to_live_ttl_policy","disposition":"considered_rejected","contribution_type":"NONE","adaptation_or_rejection":"Fixed self-expiry is unsafe for individualized guidance; use review-by dates without automatic invalidation.","counterfactual_removal":"No loss because event-based clinical review supplies the trigger."},{"slug":"tombstone_or_deletion_marker","disposition":"selected_load_bearing","contribution_type":"CORE_CAUSAL","adaptation_or_rejection":"Leave a superseded marker with successor, date, reason, and access route.","counterfactual_removal":"Absence becomes ambiguous and old copies can continue circulating without resolution."}],"causal_chain":["Inventory and identity resolution expose conflicting recommendation generations.","Clinical events and context checks flag candidates for review rather than declaring them invalid.","Authorized review assigns current, superseded, exception-held, or historical state.","Supersession markers and visibility tiering remove obsolete guidance from routine authority while preserving lineage.","Dependency checks, reversible suppression, audits, and restore drills protect recovery and accountability.","Reduced active-facing conflict should reduce selection of stale guidance."],"baseline":"Clinicians manually compare dates, notes, orders, and handoffs; stale text is corrected or copied forward case by case, while historical material generally remains equally searchable.","nearest_rival":"A single current swallowing-order banner reconciled at each transition, without lifecycle states or cross-artifact lineage management.","authority_safety":{"affected_parties":["patients","caregivers","clinical users","authors of historical records"],"decision_authority":"Treating SLP and responsible medical team determine clinical currency; records/compliance authorities govern retention and destruction; patients or surrogates participate where required.","authorized_first_step":"In one service for four weeks, run a read-only shadow review on closed or clinician-reviewed encounters; compare flagged conflicts with blinded expert adjudication and simulate visibility changes without altering care.","excluded_actions":["automatic clinical invalidation from age or score","editing or destroying source clinical records","changing diets, liquids, supervision, or precautions without authorized clinical review","hiding disputed guidance from reviewers","using pilot flags as patient-facing advice"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if any simulated demotion targets adjudicated-current guidance, obscures a live dependency, lacks a recoverable lineage link, or causes unauthorized disclosure; discard simulated states and retain the unchanged record."}},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Conflicting text may rarely influence action because teams reliably use a single authoritative order view; lifecycle processing could add alert burden while duplicating reconciliation.","analogy_break":"Clinical recommendations are not disposable storage objects: age is weak evidence of invalidity, authority may be distributed, and historical context can remain clinically necessary. Therefore deletion and fixed TTL do not transfer directly.","failure_condition":"The approach fails if recommendation generations cannot be identity-linked across artifacts, authoritative reviewers cannot resolve currency, or lifecycle labels are less understandable than existing record conventions.","problem_falsifier":"In a representative audit, clinicians consistently identify the authoritative recommendation, no materially conflicting active-facing generations exist, and observed errors or delays are unrelated to stale guidance.","intervention_falsifier":"The problem exists, but shadow testing shows lifecycle flags and tiered displays do not improve correct current-guidance selection versus the baseline or nearest rival, or they increase missed-current-guidance events.","risks":["Incorrect demotion could conceal current safety instructions.","False precision from age-weighted scoring could bias reviewers.","Tiering may delay access to clinically relevant history.","Sensitive clinical information could be exposed through a new registry.","Additional review work may worsen alert fatigue.","Retention or destruction rules may conflict with applicable obligations."]},"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":0.78,"generator_notes":"Closed-book structural inference from the supplied packet. Empirical prevalence, effect size, workflow feasibility, and applicable retention periods remain unverified."}