{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__law_governance","considered_ids":["H3","H4","H5"],"selected_id":"H3","dispositions":[{"hypothesis_id":"H3","lane":"FINALIST","reason":"Despite substantial collision with emergency-power sunset and renewal regimes, the critic identifies a narrow, material, and directly falsifiable residual: independently clocked expiry and clause-specific evidentiary renewal for every operative exception within a directive. The sources also establish a strong, recognizable governance problem around repeated extensions, inertia, and package-level review."},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","lane":"RESEARCH","reason":"The critic identifies a potentially material residual in a mandatory multi-artifact reverse-dependency gate, but the hypothesis spans legal instruments, forms, funding rules, and enforcement powers and therefore requires more research to establish its completeness and differentiated scope against established consequential review, reference validation, and legislative graphs."},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","lane":"DIFFUSION","reason":"Its core mechanisms—sampled retrieval, restoration testing, renderability checks, integrity validation, and corrective preservation—are established archival practice. The remaining administrative-law package application is best treated as domain-specific adoption and evaluation rather than a differentiated mechanism."}],"selection_reason":"H3 offers the narrowest supported distinction: a clause-level lease and renewal gate within emergency directives. Its residual claim is more precisely bounded and falsifiable than H4's broad cross-system integration, while H5 is primarily diffusion of mature preservation practice."}