{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__logistics_supply_chain","arm":"RETRIEVAL_FIRST","round_index":0,"hypotheses":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","title":"Expiring warehouse work-instruction versions","problem":"Obsolete pick, pack, and handling instructions remain discoverable beside current versions.","affected_stakeholder":"Warehouse associates and shift supervisors","workflow_boundary":"From instruction publication through task display at the point of execution","failure_mode":"A superseded instruction is treated as current, causing a handling or fulfillment error.","unit_of_analysis":"Instruction version × warehouse process","causal_lever":"Expire superseded versions from active search while preserving a marked, recoverable history.","archetype_mapping":"Treat each published instruction as a deposited layer with explicit active, superseded, quarantined, and archived states.","expected_value":"Fewer errors attributable to obsolete guidance without losing incident reconstruction evidence.","falsifiable_claim":"Warehouses using automatic supersession markers and active-view TTLs will have a lower rate of obsolete-instruction execution than matched warehouses using manual document cleanup.","diversity_rationale":"Targets human execution at the active-guidance boundary, with instruction versions as the unit and semantic staleness as the failure.","mechanism_slugs":["time_to_live_ttl_policy","tombstone_or_deletion_marker","stale_layer_detection_dashboard"],"search_questions":["How often do warehouse errors involve obsolete work instructions?","Do warehouse execution systems suppress superseded instructions while retaining audit history?","What comparison designs could isolate effects on instruction-related errors?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","title":"Lifecycle control for carrier rate-card layers","problem":"Successive carrier tariffs, fuel tables, and accessorial schedules accumulate across quoting and freight-audit systems.","affected_stakeholder":"Transportation buyers and freight-audit analysts","workflow_boundary":"From carrier rate ingestion through shipment rating and invoice reconciliation","failure_mode":"A stale or overlapping rate layer is applied to a shipment, producing an incorrect accrual, quote, or payment.","unit_of_analysis":"Rate-table version × carrier-lane-service combination","causal_lever":"Detect contradictions, mark supersession, and block deletion until dependent quotes and invoices are resolved.","archetype_mapping":"Manage commercial rate versions as temporal layers whose authority expires but whose lineage may remain necessary.","expected_value":"Fewer rating disputes and less analyst time spent determining which rate was authoritative.","falsifiable_claim":"Version-level supersession markers plus dependency-gated retirement will reduce shipments rated against nonauthoritative tables relative to date-filtering alone.","diversity_rationale":"Targets transactional master data, uses a carrier-lane rate version as the unit, and tests authority ambiguity rather than worker guidance.","mechanism_slugs":["stale_layer_detection_dashboard","tombstone_or_deletion_marker","dependency_safe_delete_check"],"search_questions":["How are overlapping carrier rate versions currently resolved?","What fraction of freight-audit exceptions stem from stale or ambiguous tariffs?","Can dependency checks link rate versions to unsettled shipments and invoices?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","title":"Provable restoration of cold-chain telemetry","problem":"Shipment telemetry is moved to cheap archives but may become unreadable or disconnected from current investigation tools.","affected_stakeholder":"Cold-chain quality investigators and recall teams","workflow_boundary":"From post-delivery telemetry archival through retrieval during an excursion or recall investigation","failure_mode":"Archived temperature or custody evidence cannot be restored, parsed, or reattached to the shipment record when needed.","unit_of_analysis":"Archived shipment-telemetry bundle","causal_lever":"Sample archives across age and format bands and execute end-to-end restore drills.","archetype_mapping":"Retain aging evidence in colder tiers while repeatedly validating that archived layers still support reconstruction.","expected_value":"More reliable investigations while allowing older telemetry to leave expensive active storage.","falsifiable_claim":"Archive-restore testing will identify a nonzero rate of latent retrieval, parsing, or reconnection failures that metadata-only integrity checks miss.","diversity_rationale":"Targets evidentiary recovery after archival, with an archive bundle as the unit and restore failure—not stale active use—as the outcome.","mechanism_slugs":["lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","archive_restore_test"],"search_questions":["What retention and retrieval requirements govern cold-chain telemetry?","Which format, credential, and linkage failures occur in older archives?","Do end-to-end restore drills detect failures missed by checksums or backup-success logs?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","title":"Age-weighted disposition of stranded inventory lots","problem":"Repeated receipts leave slow, obsolete, or uncertain lots occupying scarce forward-storage positions because removal decisions are deferred.","affected_stakeholder":"Inventory-control managers and warehouse operators","workflow_boundary":"From lot receipt and slot assignment through periodic re-slotting, quarantine, liquidation, or disposal","failure_mode":"Low-value aging lots consume high-value capacity while simple FIFO rules overlook reconstruction cost, demand probability, or hold status.","unit_of_analysis":"Inventory lot × storage location","causal_lever":"Rank lots using age-discounted demand, handling cost, provenance, and exception signals, then demote rather than immediately destroy low-ranked lots.","archetype_mapping":"Treat physical receipt lots as accumulated layers whose access tier and disposition should change as their expected usefulness decays.","expected_value":"More productive forward-storage capacity with fewer premature disposals of held or hard-to-replace stock.","falsifiable_claim":"An age-weighted multi-factor ranking will produce higher forward-location throughput per slot than age-only removal while not increasing emergency retrievals from quarantine or reserve storage.","diversity_rationale":"Moves the archetype to physical inventory, uses a lot-location unit, and tests capacity allocation rather than information correctness or recoverability.","mechanism_slugs":["age_weighted_value_score","cache_eviction_rule","soft_delete_quarantine_window"],"search_questions":["How are stranded lots currently prioritized for re-slotting or disposition?","Which value and risk signals predict future lot demand better than age alone?","Can reserve or quarantine movement serve as a reversible physical soft delete?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","title":"Renewable expiry for planning overrides","problem":"Manual forecast, safety-stock, and allocation overrides persist after the disruption that justified them has ended.","affected_stakeholder":"Demand planners, supply planners, and downstream customers","workflow_boundary":"From override creation through subsequent planning runs and replenishment releases","failure_mode":"An unreviewed legacy override continues distorting orders, inventory, or customer allocation.","unit_of_analysis":"Planning override × SKU-location-period","causal_lever":"Assign an expiry at creation, require evidence-based renewal, and quarantine expired overrides before permanent removal.","archetype_mapping":"Treat each override as a policy layer with a bounded lease, named owner, dependency check, and reversible retirement path.","expected_value":"Reduced policy residue and planning distortion while preserving overrides still needed by dependent commitments.","falsifiable_claim":"Creation-time TTLs with owner renewal will reduce active overrides lacking a current rationale without increasing service failures attributable to expired overrides.","diversity_rationale":"Targets recurring algorithmic planning, uses an override at SKU-location-period level, and tests opt-in renewal against hidden policy persistence.","mechanism_slugs":["time_to_live_ttl_policy","dependency_safe_delete_check","soft_delete_quarantine_window"],"search_questions":["How prevalent are ownerless or rationale-expired planning overrides?","What dependencies should block an override from expiring?","Do renewable override leases improve forecast or replenishment outcomes versus periodic manual review?"]}]}