{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__law_governance","round_index":0,"assessments":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","search_queries":["site:acus.gov Recommendation 2021-7 public availability inoperative agency guidance documents superseded successor link","site:whitehouse.gov \"Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices\" superseded withdrawn","site:fda.gov \"withdrawn guidance\" \"Search for FDA Guidance Documents\"","site:federalregister.gov public availability agency guidance documents withdrawn rescinded successor guidance 2019"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H1-S1","title":"Public Availability of Inoperative Agency Guidance Documents","publisher":"Administrative Conference of the United States / Federal Register","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-01-12/pdf/2022-00463.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["ACUS recognizes that guidance may become inoperative through rescission, partial rescission, supersession, or changed law.","It recommends marking documents as current, withdrawn, or rescinded; identifying withdrawal dates; and linking successor guidance while retaining appropriate historical access."]},{"source_id":"H1-S2","title":"Food and Drug Administration Report and Plan on Best Practices for Guidance","publisher":"U.S. Food and Drug Administration","url":"https://www.fda.gov/media/183214/download?attachment=","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["FDA states that withdrawn guidance no longer reflects current policy and should not be relied upon as such.","FDA maintains withdrawn-guidance listings and plans to provide docket information or archived-page links so prior policy remains historically accessible."]},{"source_id":"H1-S3","title":"Qualifications of Drivers: Medical Advisory Criteria","publisher":"Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration / Federal Register","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/19/2024-00980/qualifications-of-drivers-medical-advisory-criteria/","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["FMCSA publishes guidance through an official portal and expects to review this guidance within five years.","The scheduled review expressly considers withdrawal, reissuance, or incorporation into regulations."]}],"closest_analogue":"ACUS's lifecycle treatment for inoperative agency guidance, implemented in agency portals such as FDA's withdrawn-guidance listings.","overlap":"The analogue already combines periodic review, explicit current/withdrawn/rescinded status, prominent supersession labeling, successor links, and preservation of historical copies—the central lifecycle controls proposed here.","remaining_difference":"Machine enforcement of review-by dates and the proposed controlled retrieval experiment are implementation and evaluation details, not a materially different governance mechanism.","classification":"OBVIOUS_COLLISION","disposition":"REJECT","rationale":"Official federal guidance and agency practice already specify nearly the same document-lifecycle intervention, including status markers, successor links, review, withdrawal, and historical preservation."},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","search_queries":["proposition level citator negative treatment point of law KeyCite official","site:lexisnexis.com Shepard's point of law negative treatment proposition official","site:thomsonreuters.com KeyCite quotation analysis cited passage invalidated official","legal citator proposition-level treatment research paper invalid citations partly overruled"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H2-S1","title":"KeyCite - Westlaw","publisher":"Thomson Reuters","url":"https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw/keycite","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","claims_supported":["KeyCite Overruling Risk warns when a point of law has been implicitly undermined through reliance on an invalid prior decision.","The product traces citing references, treatment, and document history rather than relying only on a whole-opinion validity label."]},{"source_id":"H2-S2","title":"Shepard's Citations Service","publisher":"LexisNexis","url":"https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/lexis/shepards.page","source_class":"COMMERCIAL_FIRST_PARTY","claims_supported":["Shepard's expressly addresses the fact that courts rarely overrule every point of law in an opinion.","It presents positive and negative treatment of distinct points that may remain valid or become impaired within an otherwise mixed-status case."]},{"source_id":"H2-S3","title":"Evaluating Shepard’s, KeyCite, and BCite for Case Validation Accuracy","publisher":"William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository","url":"https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/libpubs/131/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["The study evaluates citator accuracy using 357 citing relationships labeled as negative by at least one service.","It confirms that proposition-sensitive negative-treatment validation is an established, testable product category with competing implementations."]}],"closest_analogue":"Westlaw KeyCite Overruling Risk, with Shepard's point-of-law treatment as a parallel commercial implementation.","overlap":"Existing citators trace negative-treatment dependencies, distinguish treatment of particular points of law from the status of the opinion as a whole, and warn about propositions implicitly undermined by invalid authorities.","remaining_difference":"The proposed benchmark and durable marker presentation could compare interfaces or accuracy, but the claimed proposition-level dependency mechanism is already an advertised core capability of leading citators.","classification":"OBVIOUS_COLLISION","disposition":"REJECT","rationale":"The central distinction from opinion-level warnings—identifying invalidity at the point-of-law level—is already explicit in first-party descriptions of both KeyCite and Shepard's."},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","search_queries":["site:legislature.mi.gov emergency order renewal 28 days statute governor official","emergency regulation individual provision clause expires unless renewed evidence review statute","site:legislation.gov.uk coronavirus regulations expiry review necessity individual restriction review period","emergency directive sunset clause affirmative renewal empirical study duration operational gaps"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H3-S1","title":"About the Emergency Rulemaking Process","publisher":"California Office of Administrative Law","url":"https://oal.ca.gov/emergency_regulations/emergency_regulation_process/","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["California agencies ordinarily must support an emergency finding with specific facts and substantial evidence.","Emergency regulations expire by operation of law, and agencies seeking readoption must submit another request before expiration."]},{"source_id":"H3-S2","title":"Coronavirus Act 2020: Explanatory Notes","publisher":"UK Legislation","url":"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/notes/division/40/index.htm","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["The Act imposed a two-year default expiry and six-month parliamentary review of temporary powers.","Its lifecycle machinery allowed individual provisions to be commenced, suspended, revived, or assigned altered expiry dates, with periodic status reporting."]},{"source_id":"H3-S3","title":"MCL Section 10.83: State of Energy Emergency; Declaration, Continuation, Extension, and Termination","publisher":"Michigan Legislature","url":"https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-10-83","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["A Michigan energy emergency terminates after 90 days unless the legislature affirmatively extends it for a specified period.","The legislature may also terminate the emergency earlier."]},{"source_id":"H3-S4","title":"An Iridescent Sunset: An Empirical Analysis of Sunset Legislation","publisher":"Journal of Regulatory Economics","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11149-025-09498-5","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Sunset provisions that require affirmative reauthorization are an established governance design.","The study reports that prior empirical work has not established broad efficiency or waste-reduction benefits, leaving outcome effects dependent on institutional design."]}],"closest_analogue":"California's evidence-supported, automatically expiring emergency-regulation readoption process.","overlap":"Existing regimes already combine automatic expiration, affirmative renewal or readoption, stated necessity, evidentiary support, periodic review, and preservation of the legal record; the UK regime also manages some powers at provision level.","remaining_difference":"The testable distinction is a lease attached separately to every operative exception clause, requiring clause-specific evidence for renewal rather than renewing an emergency declaration, regulation, or block of temporary provisions. A study can measure post-necessity enforcement days and authority gaps at that clause-level unit.","classification":"POSSIBLE_DISTINCTION","disposition":"ADVANCE","rationale":"Sunsets and evidence-backed emergency-rule renewals are established, but the shallow screen did not locate an implemented regime that makes each exception clause independently expire and requires clause-specific renewal evidence."},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","search_queries":["official legislative drafting manual repeal consequential amendments cross references dependencies check","site:gov.uk legislative drafting guidance repeal consequential amendments cross references","legislation dependency graph repeal conforming amendments automated tool official legislative counsel","statutory dependency graph detect affected regulations repeal legislative drafting tool"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H4-S1","title":"Guide to Making Legislation","publisher":"UK Cabinet Office","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-making-legislation/guide-to-making-legislation-html--2","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Bill instructions may need to list every existing provision requiring consequential amendment or repeal.","Where the required effect is not obvious, departments must explain the intended treatment rather than leave downstream effects unresolved."]},{"source_id":"H4-S2","title":"2024-03-19 Drafting Guidance","publisher":"UK Office of the Parliamentary Counsel","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drafting-bills-for-parliament/2024-03-19-drafting-guidance","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["The guidance addresses repeal schedules, consequential amendments, savings, transitional provisions, cross-references, subordinate legislation, and prospective amendments.","It warns that repeal can have unintended substantive effects and directs drafters to account for related provisions."]},{"source_id":"H4-S3","title":"Repeal, Disallowance and Sunsetting","publisher":"Federal Register of Legislation, Australian Government","url":"https://www.legislation.gov.au/help-and-resources/understanding-legislation/repealdisallowanceandsunsetting","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Repealing an Act generally causes instruments made under it to lapse unless they are expressly preserved.","Savings, transitional rules, and other substantive provisions can prevent simple automatic cleanup."]},{"source_id":"H4-S4","title":"FRTracker: Deterministic Extraction and Structural Modeling of Federal Regulatory Obligations","publisher":"SSRN / Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law","url":"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/6287378.pdf?abstractid=6287378&mirid=1","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["FRTracker models external regulatory cross-references as dependencies and provides auditable structural analysis of federal regulatory text.","This shows that automated legal-dependency extraction exists, but the described tool is analytical rather than an enactment-blocking repeal gate."]}],"closest_analogue":"The UK consequential-amendments-and-repeals drafting workflow, augmented by cross-reference and regulatory-dependency analysis tools.","overlap":"Existing drafting practice requires identification of affected enactments, consequential changes, savings and transitional treatment; official guidance recognizes that delegated instruments can lapse when their enabling Act is repealed, and research tools can map explicit regulatory cross-references.","remaining_difference":"The testable distinction is a mandatory enactment gate over a live inbound graph spanning statutes, delegated instruments, forms, funding rules, and enforcement powers, with every dependency resolved, migrated, preserved, or recorded as an intentional orphan. The proposed retrospective comparison can measure omissions detected and reviewer time.","classification":"POSSIBLE_DISTINCTION","disposition":"ADVANCE","rationale":"Manual consequential-amendment review and automated cross-reference mapping are close analogues, but the screen did not find a first-party legislative workflow that blocks repeal until a multi-artifact inbound dependency graph receives explicit dispositions."},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","search_queries":["site:archives.gov digital preservation test restore archived records checksums formats administrative records official","ISO 16363 repository test restore archived information recoverability standard","site:epa.gov administrative record guidance electronic archived record index completeness official","digital archive end-to-end access test restore package repository audit standard retrieval"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H5-S1","title":"Digital Preservation Strategy 2022-2026","publisher":"U.S. National Archives and Records Administration","url":"https://www.archives.gov/files/preservation/digital-preservation/digital-preservation-strategy-2022-2026.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["NARA identifies format obsolescence and long-term accessibility as preservation risks.","Its strategy calls for annual sampled audits of fixity information and media and for preservation actions such as format transformation."]},{"source_id":"H5-S2","title":"Guidance: Compiling Administrative Records for Superfund Response Actions","publisher":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","url":"https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/guidance-compiling-administrative-records-superfund-response-actions","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["EPA requires compilation and maintenance of administrative records explaining agency response decisions.","The guidance addresses electronic public availability of the record file and thus supplies a concrete administrative-record package use case."]},{"source_id":"H5-S3","title":"eArchiving Conformance Seal","publisher":"European Commission","url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/earchiving-conformance-seal","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","claims_supported":["The eArchiving conformance process validates individual archival information packages and representative package samples.","Conformance review covers ingest and processing of information packages, not merely storage-media checks."]},{"source_id":"H5-S4","title":"ISO 16363:2025 — Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories","publisher":"International Organization for Standardization","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/87472.html","source_class":"STANDARD","claims_supported":["ISO 16363 defines an audit and certification framework for assessing trustworthy digital repositories.","Its scope covers the full range of digital repositories, establishing mature preservation-audit practice around the proposal."]}],"closest_analogue":"Representative information-package validation under the European Commission's eArchiving Conformance Seal, alongside NARA's sampled preservation audits.","overlap":"Existing practice already samples archived packages, audits fixity and media, monitors obsolete formats, validates package conformance, and requires administrative records to remain maintainable and accessible.","remaining_difference":"The testable distinction is a recurring end-to-end drill on a complete closed administrative-record package that retrieves it from its actual cold tier, parses every format, restores ordering and links, reconnects it to current review systems, and records latency and fidelity. The cited analogues validate preservation properties but do not clearly require that full reconstruction exercise.","classification":"POSSIBLE_DISTINCTION","disposition":"ADVANCE","rationale":"Digital-preservation auditing is mature, but the specific package-level restoration and legal reconstruction drill remains distinguishable enough for a pilot, especially if success requires restored ordering, links, credentials, and review-system usability rather than fixity or conformance alone."}],"nominated_ids":["H3","H4","H5"],"replenishment_recommended":false}