{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__aviation_aeronautics","round_index":0,"assessments":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","search_queries":["FAA electronic flight bag current revisions obsolete documents effective date superseded charts","EFB software document revision control effective date offline device successor revision","Jeppesen FliteDeck Pro chart revision update expired charts","EASA EFB operational evaluation current aeronautical information revision control"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H1-S1","title":"AC 91-78A — Use of Electronic Flight Bags","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-78A.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["EFB navigation and performance information must be current, up to date, and valid as verified by the pilot.","The FAA recognizes EFBs as replacements for paper aeronautical charts and terminal procedures."]},{"source_id":"H1-S2","title":"FliteDeck Pro User Guide","publisher":"Jeppesen","url":"https://support.jeppesen.com/jeppdox/lib/view_attachment.php?id=588_4gTN8ZGZw9ibvlGdhNWasBHchxnZkBnLlRWa1dkclNXVfBjL5Y3XvJHUrNWZEVGdpxmR","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","claims_supported":["FliteDeck Pro can retain two enroute database versions simultaneously.","The application automatically switches to the current database at effectivity and visibly flags expired or not-yet-effective data.","A user can deliberately switch between the current and expiring database versions."]},{"source_id":"H1-S3","title":"FliteDeck Pro Release Notes","publisher":"Jeppesen","url":"https://support.jeppesen.com/jeppdox/lib/view_attachment.php?id=661_EjN2wnZkB3Lu9Wa0F2YpxGcwFGfmRGcuUGdv5UZzFWZsVmUfFzXkBXVfBjL5Y3XvJHUrNWZEVGdpxmR","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","claims_supported":["The product has an airport revision selector and effectivity badges.","Jeppesen documented defects involving incorrect effectivity dates, deleted charts remaining visible until restart, and selection of an older rather than most-recent company chart."]}],"closest_analogue":"Jeppesen FliteDeck Pro's dual-version effectivity handling: co-resident revisions, automatic activation of the effective database, status flags for expired or premature data, and a revision selector for historical access.","overlap":"Both approaches attach temporal authority to locally cached aeronautical-data revisions, distinguish current from expired or future versions, retain limited historical access, and try to prevent an obsolete revision from appearing authoritative. The documented deletion-visibility defect also matches the stated offline synchronization failure mode.","remaining_difference":"The narrow residual is a durable successor-resolution marker applied to searches across heterogeneous charts, procedures, and notices—not merely database auto-switching or an expiry badge—and a controlled comparison against date labels alone. That is an implementation and evaluation difference around an already-deployed core mechanism.","classification":"OBVIOUS_COLLISION","disposition":"REJECT","rationale":"A first-party operational EFB already implements the central causal lever: effectivity intervals, automatic current-version selection, expired-data signaling, and controlled access to adjacent revisions. Adding search redirection and testing its magnitude does not create enough separation for this shallow screen."},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","search_queries":["FAA aircraft certification computational fluid dynamics data retention simulation records reproducibility","NASA aerodynamic simulation provenance archive reproducibility CFD data management","site:siemens.com Teamcenter simulation process data management provenance archive aerospace","scientific workflow data provenance storage tiering garbage collection dependency aware archive paper"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H2-S1","title":"AC 20-179 — Certification Data Retention Agreements and Government Records","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1021206","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["The FAA provides procedures for certification-data retention agreements with design approval applicants and holders.","The guidance identifies certification data that constitute government records and points electronic retention users to access-and-presentation criteria."]},{"source_id":"H2-S2","title":"Flight Dynamics Model Exchange Standard — NASA/AIAA S-119","publisher":"NASA Technical Standards System","url":"https://standards.nasa.gov/standard/NASA/AIAA-S-119","source_class":"STANDARD","claims_supported":["The standard defines exchange information for air-vehicle simulations and validation data.","It supports self-documenting, self-validating models with provenance of model components transferred with the model."]},{"source_id":"H2-S3","title":"Simulation Process Management Fact Sheet","publisher":"Siemens Digital Industries Software","url":"https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/Images/10246_tcm1023-79849.pdf","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","claims_supported":["Teamcenter manages CAE geometry, models, input decks, results, and reports with relationship links providing traceability.","Simulation objects already support create, revise, update, delete, release, and archive lifecycle operations while retaining contextual relationships.","The product detects analyses made out of date by parent-model revisions and permits large files to be managed through links."]},{"source_id":"H2-S4","title":"PROV-IO+: A Cross-Platform Provenance Framework for Scientific Data on HPC Systems","publisher":"arXiv / research authors","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00891","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["PROV-IO+ records file-, dataset-, and attribute-level lineage and execution-environment provenance for scientific HPC workflows.","Experiments on realistic workflows found low provenance-tracking overhead and demonstrated backward-lineage queries.","The framework addresses provenance and reproducibility, but does not establish certification-specific deletion gates or archive-restore drills."]}],"closest_analogue":"Siemens Teamcenter Simulation, supplemented by provenance-aware HPC frameworks such as PROV-IO+: CAE artifacts are relationship-linked, versioned, searchable, and subject to archive/delete lifecycle operations while scientific-workflow lineage remains queryable.","overlap":"The analogue covers simulation-artifact identity, product-to-result traceability, geometry/mesh/analysis relationships, stale-parent detection, lifecycle actions including archive and delete, and provenance queries needed for reconstruction. FAA retention guidance supplies the certification-record obligation that constrains disposition.","remaining_difference":"The testable residual is whether an aerospace deployment makes inbound dependency resolution a hard pre-delete gate, assigns aging bundles an explicit value score, uses reversible quarantine, and periodically proves end-to-end restoration of sampled certification-cited runs. The opened sources do not document that closed-loop combination or its hot-storage/reproducibility trade-off.","classification":"POSSIBLE_DISTINCTION","disposition":"ADVANCE","rationale":"The general SPDM and provenance territory is crowded, but the proposed hard dependency gate plus reversible deletion and recurring restore proof is narrower than the documented lifecycle capabilities. Advancement is only for testing that bounded systems distinction, not on an inference that simulation archiving itself is novel."},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","search_queries":["FAA flight operational quality assurance FOQA data retention raw flight data event segments","EASA flight data monitoring retention de-identification data segments event investigation","ICAO flight data analysis programme data retention detected events raw data","flight data monitoring selective retention event triggered segment archive research"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H3-S1","title":"Easy Access Rules for Air Operations — Flight Data Monitoring","publisher":"European Union Aviation Safety Agency","url":"https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/online-publications/easy-access-rules-air-operations?erules-id=ERULES-1963177438-12216","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["EASA directs retention strategies toward the greatest practicable safety benefit and permits reduced datasets after action and review are complete.","The guidance requires raw or decoded data to remain until significant events are analyzed, calls for at least 80 percent of relevant raw files to remain processable for two years under the forthcoming provision, and retains de-identified significant-event analyses longer.","FDM already uses exceedance events, all-flight snapshots, flight phases, evolving risk sets, and samples of de-identified full-flight data."]},{"source_id":"H3-S2","title":"AC 120-82 — Flight Operational Quality Assurance","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-82.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["FOQA systems scan selected parameters, compare values with event algorithms, and generate exceedance and trend reports.","The guidance explicitly defines phases of flight and routine operational snapshots at selected times or locations.","A FOQA implementation plan includes data-retention, security, and crew-contact policies."]},{"source_id":"H3-S3","title":"Flight Data eXchange (FDX)","publisher":"International Air Transport Association","url":"https://www.iata.org/en/services/data/safety/gadm/fdx/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","claims_supported":["FDX processes contributed raw flight data against a predefined event set and consolidates results into a de-identified database.","Its analysis can be filtered by phase of flight, date, airspace boundary, region, airport, and aircraft category."]}],"closest_analogue":"EASA's event-sensitive FDM retention strategy: preserve full data through event analysis, retain reduced closed-issue datasets for trend work, maintain significant-event records, and sample selected full flights for deeper analysis.","overlap":"Existing guidance already differentiates retention by safety-event status, analysis completion, long-term trend value, privacy constraints, and flight phase; it explicitly contemplates reducing full datasets while preserving significant-event information and sampled full flights.","remaining_difference":"The remaining testable difference is automated disposition below the whole-flight-file level: independently scoring and tiering particular phase-by-channel segments while preserving linked context needed to detect weak precursors. A critic can test whether any deployed FDM platform performs irreversible or tiered retention at that granularity and whether it preserves cross-segment event detection.","classification":"POSSIBLE_DISTINCTION","disposition":"ADVANCE","rationale":"Event-aware selective retention is established, so the broad concept is not novel. Segment-by-channel lifecycle control with explicit reconstruction links is nevertheless a bounded, empirically distinguishable refinement not shown in the opened sources; it warrants a deeper search before rejection."},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","search_queries":["FAA ERAM clearance amendments handoff display current clearance history superseded","FAA electronic flight strips clearance amendments canceled constraints handoff","controller pilot data link communications message history superseded clearance display human factors","EUROCONTROL electronic flight strips clearance revision history controller handover"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H4-S1","title":"FAA Air Traffic Control Order, Chapter 2 Section 3 — Flight Progress Strips","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap2_section_3.html","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["Controllers are directed to maintain only necessary current clearance data and remove strips no longer required for control.","Obsolete entries must not be erased or overwritten; an X marks deletion and replacement information is written adjacent to it.","Flight strips carry revision numbers and clearance-status markings."]},{"source_id":"H4-S2","title":"Electronic Flight Strips","publisher":"Federal Aviation Administration","url":"https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/tfdm/efs","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","claims_supported":["FAA electronic flight strips support real-time flight-plan updates and shared operational data.","The system integrates ERAM/FDIO data and pre-departure or departure-clearance data from TDLS."]},{"source_id":"H4-S3","title":"ASRS CALLBACK Issue 443 — Controller Pilot Data Link Communications","publisher":"NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System","url":"https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback/cb_443.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","claims_supported":["ASRS reports document confusion and excessive head-down time when current and revised clearances are distributed across disjointed ACARS or FMS pages.","Reported crews had difficulty resolving which route or clearance state controlled after revisions."]},{"source_id":"H4-S4","title":"Human Factors Considerations in the Design and Evaluation of Flight Deck Displays and Controls, Version 2","publisher":"U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center","url":"https://www.volpe.dot.gov/sites/volpe.dot.gov/files/docs/Human_Factors_Considerations_in_the_Design_and_Evaluation_of_Flight_Deck_Displays_and_Controls_V2.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Referenced display requirements call for a retrievable message-history log.","History messages must be distinguishable from pending and open messages and visually coded so old information is not interpreted as new.","Message age and status are explicit display attributes."]}],"closest_analogue":"The established flight-progress-strip convention of keeping current clearance data salient while X-marking superseded entries beside their replacements, reinforced electronically by message-status and visually differentiated history-log requirements.","overlap":"The analogue already demotes superseded clearance information from active authority without erasing chronology, preserves revision identity, distinguishes current/open information from history, and directly targets misinterpretation of old instructions. ASRS reports confirm the same human-factors failure motivating the hypothesis.","remaining_difference":"A controller-handoff display optimized specifically as compact successor tombstones, plus the proposed workload-simulation effect estimate, remains an interface variant and evaluation question. It does not materially separate the mechanism from existing crossed-out-strip and coded-history practice.","classification":"OBVIOUS_COLLISION","disposition":"REJECT","rationale":"Both paper and electronic aviation practices already implement active-state emphasis with visibly marked, reconstructable supersession history. The proposed display is a direct digital restatement of that established convention."},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","search_queries":["EASA temporary repair time limited repair approval expiration continuing airworthiness record","FAA temporary repair engineering authorization time limited repair tracking overdue","aircraft damage repair mapping software temporary repair expiry inspection interval","Swiss AviationSoftware AMOS structural damage repair status tracking"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H5-S1","title":"Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness","publisher":"European Union Aviation Safety Agency","url":"https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/online-publications/easy-access-rules-continuing-airworthiness?kw=Part-ML&page=8","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["Continuing-airworthiness systems must maintain repair status, scheduled one-time and repetitive task status, and traceability to approved repair data.","Repair records identify the affected item and location, repair classification, supporting file, date, and accumulated life, with cross-reference to the maintenance programme as needed.","The rules emphasize continuity, integrity, and traceability of retained maintenance records."]},{"source_id":"H5-S2","title":"Creating Structural Damage and Repair Records","publisher":"IBM Maximo for Aviation","url":"https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/maximo-for-aviation/continuous-delivery?topic=repairs-creating-structural-damage-repair-records","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","claims_supported":["Maximo records structural damage against an aircraft registration, serial number, or part number.","The record includes damage location, classification, limitation type, related records, and reference documentation."]},{"source_id":"H5-S3","title":"TARA — Aircraft Maintenance and Data Analytics Platform","publisher":"GI Aerospace","url":"https://www.giaerospace.com/TARA/","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","claims_supported":["TARA manages the full repair lifecycle from damage discovery through repair and repeat inspections.","It links damage records to repair-lifecycle documentation and provides configurable statuses, triggers, assigned tasks, digital signatures, and real-time fleet technical status."]},{"source_id":"H5-S4","title":"Trails AMS — Aircraft Maintenance Software","publisher":"Trails AMS","url":"https://trails.aero/","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","claims_supported":["Configured maintenance requirements are monitored and can automatically activate work orders when due.","Aircraft and component requirements, defects, due status, work orders, sign-offs, and supporting conformance evidence remain connected and traceable."]}],"closest_analogue":"Existing continuing-airworthiness repair-status control implemented in systems such as Maximo, TARA, and maintenance-requirement trackers: limitation type and affected serialized item are recorded, due requirements trigger work, repair history persists, and repeat inspections remain linked.","overlap":"The regulatory and product sources collectively cover time- or usage-controlled maintenance requirements, repair limitations, affected-aircraft and part identity, recurring inspections, automatic due-work activation, supporting evidence, digital sign-off, and durable repair-history traceability.","remaining_difference":"Calling the authorization a renewable lease, requiring a particular evidence packet for renewal, blocking closure through an explicit dependency-graph query, and quarantining superseded records are workflow details. No opened source proves that exact four-part bundle, but the safety-authority expiry and traceable lifecycle at its core are already routine maintenance-control functions.","classification":"OBVIOUS_COLLISION","disposition":"REJECT","rationale":"The hypothesis's main causal pathway—temporary or limited repair authority tracked against due criteria, affected assets, inspections, and retained evidence—is already embodied in continuing-airworthiness requirements and commercial maintenance systems. The residual terminology and closure safeguards are insufficient separation for advancement."}],"nominated_ids":["H2","H3"],"replenishment_recommended":false}