{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology:P2:v0","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology","search_queries":["site:nice.org.uk behaviour change goals review adjust goals individual approaches guideline","multiple goals goal interference implementation intentions primary study competing goals","goal tracking app archive pause goals limit active goals product","goal disengagement reengagement well-being systematic review psychology","site:help.finchcare.com archive pause goal official","site:help.habitify.me archive habit pause official","goal conflict goal attainment meta-analysis primary journal abstract","digital behavior change intervention goal review human autonomy safety guideline official","Finch app help pause archive goals official help center","Todoist help archive project reminders recurring tasks official archive","Habitica wiki habit task archive challenge goal official","Beeminder archive goal official help","site:ftc.gov health apps Health Breach Notification Rule 2024 official final rule","site:hhs.gov direct to consumer health app HIPAA not covered official","site:ecfr.gov 45 CFR 46 exempt research benign behavioral interventions adults","NICE PH49 behaviour change individual approaches PDF recommendations review goals jointly","NICE NG183 digital mobile health interventions PDF user tailor goals dangerous goals"],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Too Much of a Good Thing: The Benefits of Implementation Intentions Depend on the Number of Goals","publisher":"Journal of Consumer Research / Oxford University Press","url":"https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-pdf/39/3/600/17930684/39-3-600.pdf","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2012-01-26","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Implementation intentions that help with a single goal do not automatically benefit multiple-goal pursuit.","In the reported investigation, multiple implementation intentions highlighted execution difficulty, undermined commitment, and could undermine goal success.","Making multiple-goal execution appear manageable mitigated the observed problem."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Goal conflict and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis","publisher":"Journal of Research in Personality / Elsevier","url":"https://danielozer.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/0/1/29012615/a49_jrp2017.pdf","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2016-12-18","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Across 54 independent samples totaling 12,470 participants, greater goal conflict was associated with greater distress and lower positive psychological functioning.","Resource conflict can occur when otherwise compatible goals compete for finite time or attention.","Goal-conflict assessment methods differ materially, creating measurement uncertainty relevant to evaluation design."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"A meta-analytic review and conceptual model of the antecedents and outcomes of goal adjustment in response to striving difficulties","publisher":"Nature Human Behaviour / Springer Nature","url":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02312-4","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2025-11-13","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The review synthesized 1,421 effect sizes from 235 studies concerning disengagement, reengagement, and goal-striving flexibility.","Goal adjustment is multidimensional; disengagement, reengagement, and flexible modification have different antecedents and outcomes.","The accumulated evidence was judged low to moderate because of cross-sectional designs, publication-bias risk, and high heterogeneity.","Goal disengagement can reduce ill-being but is also negatively associated with goal progression, supporting safeguards against indiscriminate demotion."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Behaviour change: individual approaches—Recommendations (PH49)","publisher":"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence","url":"https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph49/chapter/Recommendations","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2014-01-02","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NICE identifies commissioners, intervention designers, providers, and practitioners as actors responsible for behavior-change interventions.","Guidance calls for jointly agreed goals, prioritized actions, coping plans, planned goal reviews, and tailoring according to progress and individual context.","Novel or weakly evidenced techniques should be evaluated.","Behavior-change services should be person-centred and involve users as equal partners."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Behaviour change: digital and mobile health interventions—Recommendations (NG183)","publisher":"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence","url":"https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng183/chapter/Recommendations","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2020-10-07","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Digital behavior-change interventions should use evidence-based goals, planning, feedback, and monitoring techniques.","Users should be able to tailor goals to their needs.","Interventions should not enable unhealthy or dangerous goals.","Developers should disclose data-use preferences and evaluate fit with users' care pathways; effectiveness is variable."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Introduction to projects","publisher":"Todoist","url":"https://www.todoist.com/help/articles/introduction-to-projects-TLTjNftLM","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026-07-30","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A mainstream task manager supports archiving projects, removing them from the active project list, and later restoring them.","Restoration preserves tasks, comments, reminders, attachments, and collaborator assignments.","This is close prior art for reversible active-versus-archived lifecycle management, but the documentation does not describe review leases, active-slot budgets, behavioral-plan dependencies, or safety-plan authorization."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Can I restart an archived goal?","publisher":"Beeminder","url":"https://help.beeminder.com/article/358-can-i-restart-an-archived-goal","source_class":"OFFICIAL_PRODUCT_DOCUMENTATION","publication_date":"2026-02-04","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A first-party goal-tracking product already permits archived goals to be restarted.","Historical goal data remain available after restart.","This is close prior art for recoverable goal history, but not for the proposal's full lifecycle-governance bundle."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Mobile Health App Interactive Tool","publisher":"Federal Trade Commission","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/mobile-health-apps-interactive-tool","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2024-07-29","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The FTC Act applies to most app developers and covers representations concerning privacy, security, safety, and performance.","Most non-HIPAA health apps capable of drawing identifiable health information from multiple sources may be subject to the Health Breach Notification Rule.","Data-flow analysis is necessary to determine applicable health-app obligations.","COPPA introduces additional requirements if the service is directed to children under 13 or knowingly collects their personal information."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Multiple-goal pursuit and goal conflict visibly matter: S1 found that benefits of implementation intentions did not generalize automatically to multiple goals, and S2 linked goal conflict to distress and lower positive functioning across 54 samples. S3 establishes that goal disengagement, reengagement, and flexible adjustment are consequential but heterogeneous processes. However, no source directly measures the proposal's narrower prevalence claim—accumulated obsolete commitments remaining active in behavior-change workspaces, generating cues, and confusing lapse interpretation. The asserted digital accumulation mechanism therefore remains plausible rather than directly demonstrated.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"NICE identifies commissioners, intervention designers, providers, practitioners, and users as relevant actors, calls for planned goal review and tailoring, and directs evaluation of novel techniques. NG183 supplies an identifiable authorizing context for developers and healthcare professionals using digital behavior-change interventions. This is credible institutional pull for better goal review and user control, but neither source expressly requests an active-slot sunset ledger, lease expiry, dependency gates, or archival lineage.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Todoist project archive and restore","similarity":"Implements reversible removal from an active list while preserving project content, reminders, attachments, and collaboration data.","remaining_difference":"No documented participant-selected active-slot budget, review lease, age-weighted review ranking, behavioral-plan dependency gate, safety pinning, quarantine window, or disposition lineage.","source_ids":["S6"]},{"name":"Beeminder archived-goal restart","similarity":"Archives goals without losing historical progress and permits later restoration with revised parameters.","remaining_difference":"No documented bounded active tier, expiry-triggered review, cross-goal dependency checks, authorization rules for clinical safety plans, or tombstoned successor relationships.","source_ids":["S7"]},{"name":"NICE person-centred goal review and tailoring","similarity":"Already-established practice calls for jointly agreed goals, action prioritization, coping plans, scheduled reviews, and tailoring based on progress and context.","remaining_difference":"The guidance does not specify a machine-inspectable multi-state ledger, capacity-triggered demotion, reversible quarantine, restoration testing, or preserved supersession graph.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},{"name":"Goal adjustment and multiple-goal management research","similarity":"Research recognizes multiple-goal difficulty, goal conflict, disengagement, reengagement, and flexible adjustment as meaningful psychological processes.","remaining_difference":"The cited studies do not test the proposed software-governance bundle or show that age/enactment-based ranking and a fixed active tier improve behavior-change workspaces.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Against both (A) an ordinary chronological active/completed goal list and (B) a goal tracker with manual archive/restore, the complete Ledger bundle—participant-selected active-slot budget, preassigned review leases, advisory ranking, participant-authorized demotion, dependency and safety gates, reversible quarantine, disposition markers, and restorable history—will improve correct identification of the currently operative commitment set by at least 15 percentage points and reconstruction of retirement rationale by at least 20 percentage points, without increasing missed prerequisites or inappropriate pinned-item demotions by more than 5 percentage points or increasing rumination/coercion ratings by 0.3 standard deviations. These are proposed decision thresholds, not established effects.","confidence":"MODERATE"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Archive, restore, preserved-history, reminders, and active-list filtering are technically routine in current products (S6–S7). NICE supports user-tailored goals, regular review, person-centred control, and explicit safety constraints (S4–S5). A read-only synthetic prototype therefore appears technically and procedurally feasible. Production feasibility is less settled: contextual and offline dependencies may be unobservable; ranking can create false authority; infrequent coping plans need conservative pinning; sensitive histories require access control and deletion/retention rules; clinical deployment requires existing care-plan authority; and US legal scope depends on data flows, HIPAA relationships, age, claims, and FTC health-app coverage (S8). No source validates the combined workflow, algorithm, restoration fidelity, or safety performance.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Goal conflict and adjustment matter psychologically, but the prevalence and effect size of stale digital commitment accumulation are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"NICE supplies identifiable commissioners, designers, providers, practitioners, and users who need goal review and tailoring, but there is no expressed demand for this exact ledger.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The complete bundle could improve safety and interpretability beyond manual archive/restore, but its advantage over simpler periodic review or archiving has not been tested.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S7"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"No close match to the full bundle was found in bounded search, yet most constituent mechanisms and the underlying review practice already exist. World novelty remains unmeasured.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The core state machine, metadata, ranking, archive, and restore functions are conventional software capabilities. Reliable inference of real-world dependencies and contextual validity is the main technical uncertainty.","source_ids":["S6","S7"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Ordinary commitments can remain participant-controlled, while coaches retain advisory roles and safety-linked plans defer to existing authorization. Clinical and organizational deployments still need local governance and privacy review.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":2,"rationale":"The problem has adjacent evidence and the prototype is testable, but no direct observational prevalence evidence or comparative evaluation of the proposed bundle exists.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Advisory-only ranking, participant authorization, pinning, quarantine, markers, and restoration are credible safeguards against accidental loss, although they remain unvalidated in this use case.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A software ledger can scale across nonclinical programs, and NICE explicitly values scalable and locally customizable digital interventions. Privacy, integration, and human review costs may limit clinical scaling.","source_ids":["S5","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Preregistered nonclinical crossover study with approximately 90–120 adults, three synthetic-portfolio comparators, a read-only prototype, research staffing, participant compensation, ethics review, analysis, and reporting.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Synthetic portfolios only; no live reminders, clinical records, or real safety plans.","A lightweight web prototype is sufficient.","Institutional research infrastructure is available.","Band is a resource-equivalent planning estimate, not a sourced vendor quotation."],"source_ids":[]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production-grade ledger service or module, data model, accessible interfaces, audit logging, encryption and access control, archive/restore validation, privacy and clinical-safety review, and limited integration with one behavior-change platform.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One jurisdiction and one platform integration.","No autonomous clinical decision-making.","Existing identity, notification, and secure hosting services can be reused.","Dependency detection initially relies on explicit links and human confirmation."],"source_ids":["S5","S8"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"A time-bounded launch across several nonclinical program sites or one healthcare organization, including configuration, training, support, monitoring, security testing, incident procedures, and evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Hundreds to low thousands of users.","Safety-linked plans are excluded or governed through an existing authorized workflow.","No international regulatory rollout.","Includes launch labor but not the full initial product build."],"source_ids":["S4","S5","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Hosting, encrypted archival storage, support, security and privacy operations, restoration drills, accessibility maintenance, algorithm monitoring, policy review, and one to three engineering/product FTE equivalents.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Low-thousands user scale.","Moderate archive volume and no high-cost clinical integration estate.","Annual independent safety and privacy review.","Costs could exceed the band if deployed across multiple regulated jurisdictions or health systems."],"source_ids":["S5","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Multiple-goal difficulty, goal conflict, and consequential goal adjustment are externally supported, although the specific digital accumulation prevalence remains unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"NICE identifies commissioners, intervention designers, providers, practitioners, healthcare professionals, and users as actors responsible for goal-based behavior-change interventions and their evaluation.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The full lifecycle bundle can be compared with both a chronological list and a manual archive/restore tracker using operative-set accuracy, dependency errors, lineage reconstruction, affect, and restoration outcomes.","source_ids":["S4","S6","S7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A read-only, synthetic, preregistered crossover study can test usability and immediate decision quality without changing real commitments or safety plans.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the proposed first study, synthetic portfolios, advisory output, participant-controlled decisions, immutable safety pins, and immediate rollback bound the principal risks. This does not authorize clinical deployment.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The four scopes and broad planning bands are explicit, but no direct 2026 implementation quotation, staffing benchmark, integration assessment, or jurisdiction-specific compliance estimate was found.","source_ids":["S5","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"Preregister a 90–120-person, nonclinical, within-participant crossover study using identical synthetic portfolios containing current, obsolete, conflicting, prerequisite, superseded, infrequent-but-important, and safety-pinned commitments. Randomize presentation order across three comparators: (A) ordinary chronological active/completed list, (B) conventional goal tracker with prioritization plus manual archive/restore, and (C) the complete read-only Ledger. Primary outcomes are operative-set identification accuracy and time; secondary outcomes are missed dependencies, inappropriate demotion choices, rationale reconstruction, restoration fidelity, review workload, perceived coercion, and short-form rumination/shame. Require zero executable demotions of safety-pinned items and successful restoration of every sampled archived record and link. Treat the incremental claim as falsified if C fails to improve operative-set accuracy by 15 percentage points or retirement-rationale reconstruction by 20 percentage points relative to both comparators, or if it increases missed prerequisites/pinned-item errors by more than 5 percentage points, rumination/coercion by at least 0.3 SD, or median resolution time by more than 25%. Stop immediately if the interface presents advisory ranking as mandatory, permits a pinned-item state change, loses a dependency/successor link, or cannot restore a quarantined record.","blocking_evidence":["No direct estimate of how often behavior-change users accumulate obsolete but still-active commitments.","No evidence that active commitment count, unmarked supersession, or repeated dismissal predicts confusion about current intentions.","No comparative trial of the complete Ledger bundle against both ordinary lists and existing archive/restore products.","No validated method or optimal threshold for selecting an active-slot budget.","No validated weighting model for enactment recency, endorsement, contextual fit, prerequisite role, and recovery value.","No evidence that explicit sunset review reduces rather than increases shame, rumination, coercion, or premature abandonment.","No demonstrated recall or detection rate for implicit, offline, or clinically relevant dependencies.","No adopter willingness, workflow-burden, or procurement evidence from behavior-change programs.","No jurisdiction-specific legal assessment covering data category, HIPAA/business-associate status, FTC coverage, state privacy law, minors, retention, deletion, and clinical claims.","No sourced 2026 cost benchmark or platform-specific integration estimate.","World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact remain unmeasured."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"Bounded web search found adjacent products and established goal-review practices but no direct source documenting the entire proposed combination. This is not a world-novelty, patentability, freedom-to-operate, or exhaustive product-landscape determination; undiscovered academic systems, commercial features, patents, and local clinical workflows may substantially narrow or eliminate the remaining distinction.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Measure the prevalence and operational consequences of stale, conflicting, or silently superseded commitments in real behavior-change workspaces.","Complete the preregistered three-comparator synthetic crossover study and report all benefit, burden, affect, dependency, pinning, and restoration outcomes.","Demonstrate that safety-pinned commitments cannot be demoted through any interface or API path.","Validate or reject the proposed 15-point operative-set and 20-point lineage-reconstruction advantages with predeclared safety noninferiority limits.","Obtain adopter interviews or letters of interest from at least two identifiable program operators, commissioners, or digital-intervention teams.","Produce a platform-specific security, privacy, data-flow, authority, retention, and deletion assessment.","Replace planning-level cost bands with staffing estimates and at least two implementation quotations or equivalent internal estimates."],"reason":"Bounded web research establishes a credible adjacent problem, adopters, prior art, and a testable residual claim, but cannot determine whether the ledger improves decision quality, avoids rumination and coercion, catches dependencies, or restores histories reliably. Those questions require participant fieldwork and live prototype testing, so the evaluation must stop for empirical research rather than continue with web-only investigation."},"proposal_index":2}