{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__environmental_climate:P2:v0","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__environmental_climate","search_queries":["site:gao.gov FEMA flood maps outdated climate change future conditions report","site:fema.gov flood map products current effective historical maps archive GIS","site:fgdc.gov geospatial data lifecycle archive metadata standard","site:usgs.gov geospatial data lifecycle preservation archive version","official climate flood hazard maps version superseded archive agency GIS current historical map editions","site:fema.gov Risk MAP multiyear plan 2023 2027 data customer current future flood risk authoritative","site:archives.gov geospatial records retention GIS data schedule federal records","site:ogc.org records API version metadata deprecated superseded geospatial catalog standard","site:docs.aws.amazon.com S3 lifecycle versioned objects archive restore Glacier official","site:aws.amazon.com s3 glacier pricing retrieval 2026 official","site:doc.arcgis.com superseded deprecated authoritative content map layers item lifecycle","site:pro.arcgis.com archive geodatabase historical versions restore GIS official","site:fema.gov \"Risk MAP Multi-Year Plan\" 2023 2027 html","site:fema.gov flood risk map program data lifecycle current future customer needs Risk MAP","site:usgs.gov data lifecycle archive dispose preserve metadata GIS HTML","site:fgdc.gov \"Stages of the Geospatial Data Lifecycle\" archive html"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"FEMA Flood Maps: Better Planning and Analysis Needed to Address Current and Future Flood Hazards","publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104079","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2021-10-25","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FEMA flood maps guide insurance, mitigation, and community-planning decisions.","GAO found examined products did not reflect best available climate science or some current hazards.","FEMA is an identifiable producer, updater, authorizer, and funder of flood-risk products.","FEMA and DHS accepted recommendations for program planning and periodic assessment of product usefulness."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"MSC Search All Products","publisher":"Federal Emergency Management Agency","url":"https://emilms.fema.gov/is_0273/groups/134.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FEMA's Map Service Center distinguishes the current effective map from preliminary and historic FIRM products.","Current and historical editions can coexist in an official discovery system.","Separating current discovery from broader historical-product search is already practiced for flood maps."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Policy: OMB Circular A-16 and Supplemental Guidance","publisher":"Federal Geographic Data Committee","url":"https://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/a-16/index_html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2010-11-10","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Federal geospatial-asset management already has an endorsed lifecycle framework.","The framework defines seven lifecycle stages and stakeholder roles for developing, managing, and reporting national geospatial datasets.","Coordinated and economical management of spatial-data assets is an established policy objective."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Guidance on Documenting Revisions to USGS Scientific Digital Data Releases","publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey","url":"https://www.usgs.gov/office-of-science-quality-and-integrity/guidance-documenting-revisions-usgs-scientific-digital-data","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["USGS already defines revision levels, version numbering, approval roles, and treatment of downstream automated dependencies.","Withdrawn prior versions may be preserved because they supported scientific conclusions or policy decisions.","Superseded status should be visible on the prior version's landing page.","USGS recommends automated version management when revisions are frequent."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Scheduling Records","publisher":"U.S. National Archives and Records Administration","url":"https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/scheduling/sch-records","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2025-09-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Federal records cannot be destroyed without an approved disposition authority.","Unscheduled records must be treated as permanent until scheduled.","Records schedules specify retention, destruction, or transfer for permanent preservation.","NARA recommends inventory, retention analysis, approvals, explicit instructions, and documentation; applications may notify managers rather than automatically destroy records."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Best Practices for Sharing","publisher":"Esri","url":"https://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgis-online/reference/best-practices-share.htm","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["ArcGIS Online already supports administrator-approved authoritative labels and deprecated labels for outdated items.","Esri recommends periodic review of authoritative status and directing users of deprecated content to replacements.","ArcGIS displays status on layer references and warns that deleting shared items can break dependent maps and applications.","Deletion protection is an existing safety mechanism."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Restore a Geodatabase to PostgreSQL","publisher":"Esri","url":"https://doc.esri.com/en/arcgis-pro/latest/help/data/geodatabases/manage-postgresql/restore-geodatabase-postgresql.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"n.d.","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["End-to-end restoration of an ArcGIS geodatabase from an archive is technically feasible.","Esri explicitly recommends testing backup and recovery models with test databases.","Restoration has environment, schema-order, role, spatial-library, and validation dependencies that metadata-only checks would miss."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"OGC API - Records Standard","publisher":"Open Geospatial Consortium","url":"https://www.ogc.org/standards/ogcapi-records/","source_class":"STANDARD","publication_date":"2025","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A standard API exists for browsing and searching curated geospatial metadata catalogs.","The standard supports discovery and sharing of related resources referenced by geospatial resources or their metadata.","A standards-based registry can therefore expose edition records and relationships without inventing a catalog protocol."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Flood-risk maps demonstrably affect planning and mitigation, and GAO found material currency and climate-coverage deficiencies. FEMA's own catalog distinguishes effective, preliminary, and historic products, while Esri warns that authoritative items become outdated and that removing shared layers breaks dependents. These sources validate the structural problem, but the search found no measured incidence of users mistakenly selecting superseded climate-adjusted editions in a named agency, so prevalence and realized harm remain unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"FEMA is an identifiable producer and funder, its Administrator is an authorizer, and GIS administrators plus records officers have defined authority over content status and disposition. GAO documented an expressed institutional need for better current/future hazard products and periodic usefulness assessment. No named planning agency was found explicitly requesting the proposal's complete integrated service, committing funds, or agreeing to a pilot.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S5","S6"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"ArcGIS authoritative/deprecated content workflow","similarity":"Provides privileged authority designation, deprecation warnings, periodic status review, replacement directions, visibility in dependent maps, and deletion protection—the proposal's central authority-decay and safe-supersession behavior.","remaining_difference":"It does not by itself supply review TTLs, a cross-system dependency graph, records-schedule adjudication, or sampled restore drills.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"USGS scientific-data revision and withdrawn-version workflow","similarity":"Separates current publication status from preservation, identifies potentially breaking revisions, versions releases, marks predecessors superseded, retains prior decision evidence, and recommends automated version management.","remaining_difference":"It is general scientific-data guidance rather than a configured flood-map edition service with discovery demotion and dependency scans across permits, dashboards, and reports.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"FGDC geospatial lifecycle plus NARA records scheduling","similarity":"Together establish geospatial lifecycle governance, stakeholder roles, inventory, retention and disposition authority, archival treatment, approvals, and legal restrictions on deletion.","remaining_difference":"They are governance frameworks, not an implemented edition-level service or measured user-facing intervention.","source_ids":["S3","S5"]},{"name":"FEMA Map Service Center effective/historic product separation","similarity":"Already distinguishes the current effective flood map from preliminary and historic products while retaining historical discovery.","remaining_difference":"It concerns FEMA products and does not demonstrate climate-adjusted local layers, review TTLs, dependency resolution, or restore validation.","source_ids":["S2"]},{"name":"OGC API - Records catalog","similarity":"Standardizes searchable metadata records and relationships suitable for stable edition identities and successor links.","remaining_difference":"It supplies catalog interoperability, not authority policy, retention adjudication, dependency completeness, or archival assurance.","source_ids":["S8"]},{"name":"ArcGIS/PostgreSQL tested geodatabase restoration","similarity":"Provides a concrete restoration path and recommends recovery testing, including validation after restore.","remaining_difference":"It tests database recovery rather than sampling self-contained map-edition packages with symbology, provenance, and processing environments.","source_ids":["S7"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"World novelty is not established. The remaining local, falsifiable implementation claim is that, for one agency's climate-adjusted flood-map family, adding review TTLs, cross-system dependency gating, durable successor resolution, and sampled package restoration to existing authoritative/deprecated and records-management practices will reduce erroneous selection of noncurrent editions without reducing reconstruction success or imposing unacceptable review burden.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Stable catalog records, authority/deprecation labels, successor directions, protected shared items, formal disposition schedules, version preservation, and geodatabase restoration are all supported by standards or production documentation. A read-only shadow registry is therefore technically feasible. The hard portions remain organization-specific: resolving duplicate identities, tracing references embedded in reports and permits, discovering partner-held copies, packaging proprietary model environments, applying records schedules, maintaining restricted-data controls, and distinguishing agency guidance from legally controlling maps. These gaps limit evidence for the full workflow but do not create a stop for the proposed non-mutating first step.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Selecting a stale hazard layer can affect consequential siting, mitigation, and funding decisions, while deleting historical inputs can defeat audit and reconstruction. Incidence and realized impact have not been measured.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S6"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"FEMA, GIS administrators, and records officers are identifiable authorities, and GAO documented demand for more useful and current risk products. There is no named agency commitment to this integrated intervention.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S6"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"Integration could improve consistency across catalogs, records, dependencies, and archives, but most causal components are already explicit in FEMA, FGDC, USGS, NARA, Esri, and OGC practices. No comparative performance evidence exists.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":1,"rationale":"The proposal largely composes established lifecycle, supersession, catalog, retention, dependency-protection, and restore practices. Only a narrow agency-specific integration and performance claim remains.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Existing GIS status controls, catalog standards, version guidance, and documented restore procedures support implementation. Cross-system dependency discovery and reproducible processing-environment packaging remain difficult.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Program owners, GIS administrators, and records officers have identifiable roles, but disposition authority, holds, restricted inputs, and the boundary between advisory and regulatory maps require agency-specific approval.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S6"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"Authoritative web evidence supports the problem class and prior art, but there is no named product-family inventory, selection-error baseline, dependency ground truth, cost observation, or restore result.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4","S6","S7"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Deprecation warnings, successor directions, deletion protection, retention approval, preserved prior versions, and restore testing directly reduce stale-use and irreversible-loss risks.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"Standards-based records and native GIS statuses can scale across managed catalogs, but completeness falls where references are embedded in documents, detached exports, partner systems, or unavailable processing environments.","source_ids":["S6","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A four-week, read-only assessment of one product family: reconcile managed catalog records, sample reports and dashboards, obtain two independent classifications, and attempt one authorized non-production restore.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing staff can access all in-scope managed systems without new procurement.","Approximately 80-200 loaded staff hours across GIS, flood-risk, records, and evaluation roles.","No production map, service, authority state, or retention setting is changed.","The band is resource-equivalent, not a vendor quote."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Configure an edition schema and shadow registry, map native authoritative/deprecated states, establish owners and retention classes, create successor relations, and document a restore package for one product family.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The agency already operates a GIS catalog and storage environment.","Native ArcGIS controls and an OGC-compatible catalog can be reused.","Custom work is limited to connectors, metadata normalization, review workflow, and audit logging.","Licensing, security accreditation, and procurement costs are not known."],"source_ids":["S5","S6","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Productionize governed state transitions, connectors to several managed catalogs and dashboards, dependency reporting, archival packaging, access controls, monitoring, training, and recovery validation for one agency program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch includes security, records, legal, accessibility, change-management, and operational testing.","References in permits and reports require partial manual review or extraction.","External partner copies remain out of scope unless partners participate.","No regulatory-map rulemaking or hydrologic remapping is included."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing stewardship, authority reviews, retention and hold administration, connector maintenance, archive storage, sampled restore drills, incident handling, and user support for one product family.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Roughly 0.25-1.0 combined FTE plus infrastructure and periodic specialist review.","Map production and scientific model updates are excluded.","Archive volume and retrieval frequency are moderate.","No public evidence priced the exact personnel, licensing, storage, or compliance burden."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official and oversight sources show flood-map currency matters, current and historic products coexist, authoritative geospatial items can become outdated, and deleting shared layers can break dependents. Proposal-specific prevalence remains unmeasured but the structural problem is externally supported.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"FEMA is an identifiable flood-map producer and funder; program owners, GIS administrators, and records officers are credible authorizers for authority labels, system changes, and disposition.","source_ids":["S1","S5","S6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"NO","reason":"The integrated performance claim is testable, but it is not presently distinct enough to pass an innovation gate: authoritative/deprecated states, periodic review, successor direction, version preservation, lifecycle governance, retention authority, dependency protection, catalog records, and recovery testing are established practices. No specific new mechanism or comparative threshold is externally supported.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"One product family can be evaluated in a read-only shadow study with fixed samples, native-practice comparators, reviewer agreement, selection accuracy, dependency coverage, restore fidelity, burden metrics, and explicit falsifiers.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The bounded first step is read-only and provisional. It neither changes map authority nor deletes, moves, or unpublishes records. Later disposition remains blocked pending program-owner and records authority, and restore work must use a non-production environment.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The four bands have bounded scopes and resource assumptions, but no named agency inventory, labor rates, archive volume, license configuration, connector count, security requirements, or vendor quote was available. The ranges are planning estimates only.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Treat this as a known-practice adoption evaluation, not a novelty pilot. At one willing agency, run a four-week read-only shadow study for one climate-adjusted flood-map family. Pre-register two comparators: A, the existing filename/date/catalog process with any native ArcGIS authoritative/deprecated controls; and B, the same process augmented with a provisional edition graph, review-due state, successor link, managed dependency list, and restore checklist. Sample all catalog entries in the family, 10 managed dashboards or projects, and 20 decision documents; have two reviewers independently identify the edition authorized for new work, predecessors, duplicates, dependencies, and retention class. Test three archived editions in a non-production environment if authorized. Measure reviewer agreement, time per edition, erroneous-current selections in standardized tasks, dependency recall against an owner-adjudicated reference set, and restoration of data, metadata, symbology, citations, and documented processing environment. Falsify the incremental claim if B improves authorized-edition selection by less than 10 percentage points, yields Cohen's kappa below 0.80, misses more than 10% of adjudicated managed dependencies, labels any dependency-bearing edition safe for disposition, fails complete restoration for any tested edition, or requires more than twice the baseline review time. Do not infer that absent managed references mean no external dependencies and do not alter production authority or disposition.","blocking_evidence":["Measured prevalence of ambiguous or erroneous edition selection in a named agency and product family.","A ground-truthed inventory resolving distributed copies and services to stable editions.","A direct comparison against native ArcGIS authoritative/deprecated and existing records-management workflows.","Owner-adjudicated dependency ground truth, including the known boundary of unmanaged partner copies and document citations.","Observed archive-restore fidelity for complete map packages and their processing environments.","Applicable records schedule, legal-hold process, restricted-data controls, licensing permissions, and named approval authorities.","Observed labor, licensing, connector, storage, security, and recurring stewardship costs.","Evidence that the integrated workflow provides a material advantage beyond established practice."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"The search measured neither world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, nor realized impact. It found established official practices covering nearly every proposed component, but did not establish whether any organization has deployed the exact combination for climate-adjusted flood-map editions. Absence of an exact-match source is not evidence of novelty.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_DIFFUSION","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Reframe the work as implementation and diffusion of established geospatial lifecycle, supersession, records-management, and recovery practices rather than as a distinct innovation.","Name one adopting agency, flood-map product family, program owner, GIS administrator, and records authority.","Inventory actual edition ambiguity and dependencies before configuring a custom service.","Benchmark native ArcGIS, USGS-style revision, FGDC lifecycle, NARA scheduling, and OGC catalog capabilities before building new infrastructure.","Pre-register selection-accuracy, dependency-coverage, restore-fidelity, review-burden, and safety thresholds for an adoption study.","Produce agency-specific cost observations and obtain records, security, licensing, and regulatory-boundary approvals before any production state change."],"reason":"The problem is credible and the read-only first step is safe, but the proposal substantially collides with established official and commercial practice. The remaining value is disciplined adoption and integration in a specific agency, not a sufficiently distinct incremental innovation. Further web research is unlikely to repair distinctiveness; any agency-specific benefit estimate would require operational evidence and should be pursued only as diffusion work."},"proposal_index":2}