{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__education_pedagogy","arm":"RETRIEVAL_FIRST","round_index":0,"hypotheses":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","title":"Superseded curriculum-layer routing","problem":"Teachers may retrieve obsolete curriculum materials as current guidance.","affected_stakeholder":"Teachers preparing lessons","workflow_boundary":"Selecting instructional materials between curriculum search and lesson-plan adoption","failure_mode":"An unlabeled older version outranks or resembles its valid successor.","unit_of_analysis":"One curriculum-resource version presented in a retrieval session","causal_lever":"Demote stale versions and route their references to the current successor.","archetype_mapping":"Curriculum revisions form temporal layers; explicit staleness states and supersession markers retire old layers without erasing lineage.","expected_value":"Fewer lessons built from invalid guidance while preserving historical reconstruction.","falsifiable_claim":"Compared with an undifferentiated repository, lifecycle labeling and successor routing reduce selection of superseded resources without increasing median retrieval time.","diversity_rationale":"Targets teacher retrieval, semantic staleness, and document-version authority rather than learner evidence, test security, or archival recovery.","mechanism_slugs":["stale_layer_detection_dashboard","tombstone_or_deletion_marker"],"search_questions":["Do curriculum repositories already detect semantic staleness rather than only version dates?","Does successor routing change teachers' selection errors or search time?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","title":"Decaying evidence in mastery decisions","problem":"Old assessment evidence may continue assigning remediation after a learner's competence changes.","affected_stakeholder":"Learners in mastery-based courses","workflow_boundary":"Updating a learner model between assessment submission and next-activity assignment","failure_mode":"Stale low-performance observations retain equal weight and trigger unnecessary remediation.","unit_of_analysis":"One learner-skill evidence observation used in a placement decision","causal_lever":"Discount evidence by age and expire it unless renewed or protected for longitudinal review.","archetype_mapping":"Successive observations accumulate as learner-state layers; decay separates current instructional authority from retained history.","expected_value":"More responsive sequencing with fewer obsolete remediation assignments.","falsifiable_claim":"Against equal-weight evidence, age-decayed evidence reduces assignments contradicted by a learner's latest validated performance without increasing premature advancement.","diversity_rationale":"Operates on individual learner-state observations, uses probabilistic authority decay, and changes adaptive sequencing rather than content retrieval.","mechanism_slugs":["age_weighted_value_score","time_to_live_ttl_policy"],"search_questions":["How do deployed learner models age or forget prior evidence?","Under what decay curves do sequencing errors improve without destabilizing mastery estimates?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","title":"Expiring course-answer authority","problem":"Archived discussion answers may reappear after course policies, tools, or concepts change.","affected_stakeholder":"Students searching course Q&A","workflow_boundary":"Returning prior discussion content between query entry and answer display","failure_mode":"A formerly correct answer is surfaced without checking its course-version context.","unit_of_analysis":"One archived answer-query impression","causal_lever":"Attach a course-context lifetime to answers and require renewal before expired answers regain active visibility.","archetype_mapping":"Discussion answers accumulate across offerings; TTLs retire their authority while tombstones retain provenance and successor links.","expected_value":"Fewer students act on obsolete answers while reusable explanations remain recoverable.","falsifiable_claim":"Context-bound expiration lowers obsolete-answer impressions versus recency-ranked search without reducing successful resolution of unchanged questions.","diversity_rationale":"Focuses on student-facing answer impressions, context mismatch, and renewal-gated visibility rather than curriculum ownership or learner-state weighting.","mechanism_slugs":["time_to_live_ttl_policy","tombstone_or_deletion_marker"],"search_questions":["Do educational Q&A systems bind answers to course or policy versions?","Does answer expiration reduce misinformation without causing duplicate questions?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","title":"Dependency-gated item-bank retirement","problem":"Compromised or invalid assessment items may remain selectable because retirement could break forms, reports, or appeals.","affected_stakeholder":"Assessment program managers","workflow_boundary":"Retiring an item between validity review and future test-form assembly","failure_mode":"Unsafe items remain active by default, or deletion severs live scoring and audit dependencies.","unit_of_analysis":"One assessment-item version proposed for retirement","causal_lever":"Block destructive retirement until inbound dependencies are resolved, then quarantine the item outside assembly.","archetype_mapping":"Item versions accumulate as governed layers; dependency checks and reversible quarantine distinguish removal from destruction.","expected_value":"Faster removal of invalid items from live use without breaking scoring lineage or appeals.","falsifiable_claim":"A dependency-gated quarantine process shortens time from retirement decision to assembly exclusion while producing no more broken downstream references than manual retirement.","diversity_rationale":"Targets a controlled item bank, integrity dependencies, and reversible exclusion under operational risk rather than semantic search or personalized instruction.","mechanism_slugs":["dependency_safe_delete_check","soft_delete_quarantine_window"],"search_questions":["How do item banks currently retire versions while preserving scoring lineage?","Does dependency-gated quarantine outperform manual review on delay and reference breakage?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","title":"Restorable learning-record tiering","problem":"Old portfolios and learning records may be costly to keep active yet unavailable when accreditation or appeals require them.","affected_stakeholder":"Registrars and accreditation teams","workflow_boundary":"Moving completed-course records from active systems through archive and later retrieval","failure_mode":"Institutions either retain everything in costly active storage or discover that archived records cannot be reconstructed.","unit_of_analysis":"One completed-course learning-record bundle","causal_lever":"Tier bundles by age and access, then test sampled restores across formats and age bands.","archetype_mapping":"Completed-course bundles form historical layers; tiering bounds active load while restore drills preserve evidentiary memory.","expected_value":"Lower active-storage and search burden with demonstrable recoverability.","falsifiable_claim":"Age-and-access tiering with scheduled restore tests reduces active record volume while meeting a predefined successful-restoration rate and latency target.","diversity_rationale":"Uses course-level bundles, cost-driven archival transitions, and recovery fidelity rather than authority suppression, adaptive decisions, or deletion safety.","mechanism_slugs":["lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","archive_restore_test"],"search_questions":["What restoration failures occur in long-lived educational record archives?","Can tiering reduce active-system load while meeting appeal and accreditation retrieval targets?"]}]}