{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__law_governance","arm":"RETRIEVAL_FIRST","round_index":0,"hypotheses":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","title":"Expiring agency guidance authority","problem":"Superseded guidance remains searchable and is mistaken for current agency policy.","affected_stakeholder":"Regulated entities and frontline enforcement staff","workflow_boundary":"From guidance publication through staff or public reliance in compliance decisions","failure_mode":"An obsolete version retains apparent authority after law, policy, or interpretation changes.","unit_of_analysis":"One versioned guidance document","causal_lever":"Assign review-by dates, detect contextual staleness, and replace retired versions with successor-linked markers.","archetype_mapping":"Guidance versions are accumulated layers whose active authority should decay without erasing historical evidence.","expected_value":"Fewer decisions based on obsolete guidance while preserving reviewable policy history.","falsifiable_claim":"In a controlled retrieval study, lifecycle-labeled guidance will reduce selection of superseded documents by at least 25% versus an unversioned repository.","diversity_rationale":"Targets public-facing interpretive authority and semantic staleness at the document-version level.","mechanism_slugs":["time_to_live_ttl_policy","stale_layer_detection_dashboard","tombstone_or_deletion_marker"],"search_questions":["Do agencies already impose machine-enforced expiry or review dates on guidance?","Does lifecycle labeling measurably reduce reliance on superseded guidance?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","title":"Proposition-level decay for precedent","problem":"Overruled or narrowed legal propositions continue circulating through citations to otherwise valid opinions.","affected_stakeholder":"Judges, clerks, lawyers, and self-represented litigants","workflow_boundary":"From case-law search through citation validation before filing or judgment","failure_mode":"Document-level treatment misses a stale proposition embedded within a partially valid decision.","unit_of_analysis":"One cited legal proposition and its dependency chain","causal_lever":"Trace negative-treatment dependencies and attach durable supersession markers to affected propositions.","archetype_mapping":"Precedential propositions form dependent layers; later holdings may expire only part of an older layer.","expected_value":"Earlier detection of invalid propositions without suppressing historically or legally valid portions of opinions.","falsifiable_claim":"For a benchmark set of subsequently limited cases, proposition-level markers will identify invalid reliance with at least 15 percentage points higher recall than opinion-level warning flags at equal precision.","diversity_rationale":"Uses proposition-level dependency resolution in adjudication rather than whole-document expiration.","mechanism_slugs":["dependency_safe_delete_check","tombstone_or_deletion_marker"],"search_questions":["Do current citators mark treatment at the proposition rather than opinion level?","What share of invalid citations survive because an opinion remains partly good law?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","title":"Renewable leases for emergency directives","problem":"Emergency directives and implementing exceptions may remain operational after their factual justification ends.","affected_stakeholder":"Residents, inspectors, and officials subject to emergency powers","workflow_boundary":"From emergency directive issuance through renewal, enforcement, and termination","failure_mode":"Continuation is the default because no accountable actor must re-establish necessity.","unit_of_analysis":"One operative directive or exception clause","causal_lever":"Stamp each clause with a short expiry lease requiring evidence-backed renewal, while preserving held copies for oversight.","archetype_mapping":"Emergency rules are fast-deposited governance layers whose authority should expire unless actively revalidated.","expected_value":"Reduced persistence of unjustified restrictions while maintaining emergency responsiveness and auditability.","falsifiable_claim":"Across matched jurisdictions or simulated dockets, renewable clause-level expiry will reduce days of post-necessity enforcement by at least 20% without increasing documented authority gaps.","diversity_rationale":"Targets coercive temporal authority, clause-level renewal, and continuation bias rather than retrieval accuracy.","mechanism_slugs":["time_to_live_ttl_policy","retention_schedule","soft_delete_quarantine_window"],"search_questions":["Which jurisdictions require affirmative renewal of emergency directives or individual clauses?","Does sunset design shorten unjustified continuation without causing operational gaps?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","title":"Dependency gate for repealing delegated authority","problem":"Repealing or amending statutes can silently strand regulations, forms, funding rules, or enforcement powers that depend on them.","affected_stakeholder":"Legislative counsel, agencies, and people governed by downstream rules","workflow_boundary":"From drafting a repeal or amendment through conforming changes before enactment","failure_mode":"An apparently obsolete provision is removed while live downstream instruments still rely on it.","unit_of_analysis":"One statutory provision and its inbound dependency graph","causal_lever":"Block repeal completion until live legal dependencies are resolved, migrated, expressly preserved, or documented as intentional orphans.","archetype_mapping":"Statutes and delegated instruments form load-bearing layers; safe retirement requires dependency inspection before removal.","expected_value":"Fewer unintended legal gaps and fewer emergency corrective amendments.","falsifiable_claim":"On a retrospective sample of amendments, a dependency-gated review will detect at least 20% more consequential conforming-change omissions than standard citation review, with reviewer time recorded.","diversity_rationale":"Focuses on enactment-time structural breakage and graph dependencies, not stale use or archival access.","mechanism_slugs":["dependency_safe_delete_check","age_weighted_value_score"],"search_questions":["What dependency checks do legislative drafting offices currently perform before repeal?","How often do missed conforming changes produce litigation or corrective legislation?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","title":"Restore drills for administrative records","problem":"Archived rulemaking and adjudicative records may become unreadable or unreconstructable before later review.","affected_stakeholder":"Affected parties, reviewing courts, agency counsel, and public archivists","workflow_boundary":"From closure and archival of an administrative record through later disclosure or judicial reconstruction","failure_mode":"Custody metadata reports preservation, but formats, links, credentials, or ordering fail during actual restoration.","unit_of_analysis":"One complete administrative-record package","causal_lever":"Tier closed records by access need and periodically restore sampled packages end to end, repairing failed formats and links.","archetype_mapping":"Closed administrative records are cold layers that may leave active use but must retain demonstrable reconstructability.","expected_value":"Earlier discovery of archival failure and more reliable procedural accountability at lower active-storage cost.","falsifiable_claim":"A one-year pilot of sampled restore drills will uncover at least one previously undetected material reconstruction defect per 100 archived packages or falsify the assumed risk at that rate.","diversity_rationale":"Tests preservation fidelity at the package and archive boundary rather than deciding whether legal authority remains active.","mechanism_slugs":["archive_restore_test","lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy"],"search_questions":["Do public bodies test full restoration of administrative records rather than checksums alone?","Which archive age bands and formats produce the most reconstruction failures?"]}]}