{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__psychology","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"psychology_expiring_paradigm_exposure_ledger_v0","proposal_index":4,"version":0,"title":"Expiring Paradigm-Exposure Ledger for Repeated Research Participation","problem":"Repeated participation in psychological research deposits successive records of paradigms, manipulations, disclosed hypotheses, deception, training, and debriefing. These exposure records can remain active as exclusion grounds long after their relevance has become uncertain, causing participants to be treated as permanently non-naive. At the opposite extreme, ad hoc deletion can admit someone whose prior knowledge could affect a current protocol, permit prohibited repeat exposure, or erase records needed for withdrawal handling, adverse-event review, compensation, longitudinal follow-up, or audit. Study-level files rarely express when an exposure should stop governing eligibility while still remaining recoverable for authorized purposes.","actors":["Research participant","Principal investigator or delegated study coordinator","Participant-pool administrator","Research ethics or human-subjects reviewer","Authorized research data steward"],"observable_state":"A participant pool contains accumulated study-exposure records with inconsistent identifiers, paradigm labels, debriefing states, retention periods, and eligibility consequences. Some old records continue triggering broad exclusions without a recorded current rationale; other records disappear without dependency checks. Observable indicators include permanent exclusion tags with no review date, duplicate exposure entries, inconsistent eligibility decisions for equivalent histories, unrecorded links to longitudinal protocols or adverse-event files, debriefed studies still treated as undisclosed, and inability to reconstruct why a participant was admitted or excluded.","consequence":"Indefinitely active exposure layers can unnecessarily restrict participation and retain sensitive research histories, while prematurely removed layers can undermine protocol eligibility checks, repeat-exposure safeguards, research interpretation, and accountability.","affected_objective":"Use only currently authorized and protocol-relevant exposure information for participation screening while minimizing active sensitive data and preserving required audit, safety, withdrawal, and longitudinal dependencies.","intervention":"Create a protocol-governed Expiring Paradigm-Exposure Ledger that stores one minimal, pseudonymous layer per research exposure. Each layer records the paradigm family, exposure date, manipulation or hypothesis knowledge relevant to future screening, debriefing state, protocol identifier, permitted uses, dependencies, retention class, review lease, and lifecycle state: active hold, review-due, restricted, archived, quarantined, or disposed. Ethics-approved rules assign different review periods to different exposure classes rather than treating every prior study as a permanent exclusion. Lease expiry removes the layer from automatic exclusion only after an authorized review of the new protocol's eligibility rule; it never asserts that the participant has forgotten. Active screening returns the narrow eligibility fact required by the protocol rather than the participant's full history. Dependency checks protect longitudinal follow-up, safety review, compensation, withdrawal, and audit records. Restricted archives, reversible quarantine, disposition markers, and restoration drills preserve required reconstruction without keeping every exposure in the active screening tier.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Sequential deposits","domain_realization":"Each completed, withdrawn, or partially completed psychological study adds an exposure record to the participant's research history."},{"archetype_element":"Changing active value and risk","domain_realization":"An exposure's relevance to future eligibility varies with paradigm similarity, disclosed information, debriefing, protocol restrictions, elapsed time, and continuing research dependencies."},{"archetype_element":"Stale active layers","domain_realization":"Old exposure tags remain capable of excluding participants even when no current protocol-specific rationale has been recorded."},{"archetype_element":"Explicit inventory and age index","domain_realization":"The ledger resolves duplicate exposure records and makes dates, paradigm classes, debriefing states, permissions, and review deadlines inspectable."},{"archetype_element":"Expiration trigger","domain_realization":"A preassigned review lease moves an exposure hold to review-due; expiration initiates protocol-specific reassessment rather than automatic deletion or a claim about memory decay."},{"archetype_element":"Retention and exception matrix","domain_realization":"Ethics-approved exposure classes receive distinct active-screening, restricted-retention, and disposition rules, with named exceptions for safety, withdrawal, audit, or longitudinal needs."},{"archetype_element":"Tiered disposition","domain_realization":"Layers can leave active screening for restricted archive, enter reversible quarantine, or be disposed under authorization instead of remaining permanently active."},{"archetype_element":"Dependency-safe removal","domain_realization":"Inbound links from follow-up studies, adverse-event reviews, compensation records, withdrawal requests, and audits block removal until resolved."},{"archetype_element":"Auditability after retirement","domain_realization":"A minimal marker records that an exposure layer was retired, under which authority, and where surviving references should resolve."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"stale_layer_detection_dashboard","role":"Maintains the pseudonymous exposure inventory and surfaces duplicate entries, expired review leases, inconsistent paradigm labels, unresolved debriefing states, overbroad exclusions, and missing owners without changing eligibility.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an identity-resolved inventory, stale exclusion layers and missing dependencies remain distributed across study files and cannot be reviewed consistently."},{"mechanism_slug":"time_to_live_ttl_policy","role":"Stamps each exposure class with an ethics-approved review lease at deposition; expiry changes the layer to review-due and suspends automatic exclusion pending protocol-specific human review.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a precommitted trigger, prior exposure can remain an indefinite exclusion merely because nobody revisits it."},{"mechanism_slug":"retention_schedule","role":"Maps exposure classes to active-screening periods, restricted-retention periods, disposition actions, and preservation overrides for longitudinal, safety, withdrawal, compensation, or audit obligations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the class-to-obligation matrix, equivalent exposure records can be retained, exposed, or deleted according to inconsistent local habits."},{"mechanism_slug":"dependency_safe_delete_check","role":"Traces authorized inbound references from longitudinal protocols, adverse-event reviews, compensation workflows, withdrawal records, publications, and audits before archival anonymization or disposal.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the dependency gate, cleanup could break participant protections, follow-up procedures, or reconstruction of a study decision."},{"mechanism_slug":"lifecycle_storage_tiering_policy","role":"Keeps only current eligibility holds in the active screening tier, moves review-due and restricted records to controlled tiers, and places required historical layers in access-limited archive.","counterfactual_removal":"Without tiering, satisfying a retention obligation would also keep sensitive exposure details unnecessarily available to routine screeners."},{"mechanism_slug":"soft_delete_quarantine_window","role":"Places an approved disposition into a recoverable, access-restricted quarantine for a grace period sized by unresolved-impact risk before final destruction or irreversible anonymization.","counterfactual_removal":"Without quarantine, an overlooked longitudinal or safety dependency could be discovered only after the exposure record became unrecoverable."},{"mechanism_slug":"tombstone_or_deletion_marker","role":"Leaves a minimal marker containing the retired layer identifier, disposition authority, date, reason class, and successor or terminal status, without retaining the substantive exposure details.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the marker, surviving references could not distinguish authorized disposition from a missing or never-created record, and deleted entries might be accidentally recreated from stale copies."},{"mechanism_slug":"archive_restore_test","role":"Periodically samples restricted archives across exposure classes and exercises retrieval, permission validation, parsing, and reconnection to a synthetic or authorized audit query.","counterfactual_removal":"Without an end-to-end test, archived histories could become unreadable or detached from their permissions while still being treated as recoverable."}],"causal_chain":["Repeated study participation deposits successive exposure layers into study and participant-pool records.","The ledger resolves these layers into a minimal pseudonymous inventory with explicit age, paradigm class, debriefing state, permissions, dependencies, and lifecycle status.","An ethics-approved review lease bounds how long an exposure can remain an automatic screening hold without reassessment.","When a lease expires, the layer becomes review-due and no longer independently determines eligibility.","An authorized reviewer compares the exposure attributes with the specific new protocol and renews a narrow hold, restricts the layer, archives it, or approves disposition.","Dependency and preservation checks prevent retirement from breaking longitudinal, safety, withdrawal, compensation, or audit processes.","Routine screening reveals only the current protocol-specific eligibility result, while older required histories move to access-limited tiers.","Quarantine, disposition markers, and tested restoration preserve accountable reconstruction while reducing indefinite active use of exposure histories."],"baseline":"Individual laboratories and participant pools retain study histories in enrollment systems, spreadsheets, consent records, or investigator knowledge. Screening may rely on permanent exclusion lists, broad prior-participation questions, or participant recall. Retention rules usually govern whole study files, while the duration for which a specific exposure should affect a later protocol is decided manually or left implicit.","nearest_rivals":["Permanent do-not-enroll lists that reliably block repeat participation but do not revalidate the continuing relevance or sensitivity of each exclusion","Participant self-report of prior studies, which minimizes centralized records but depends on recall and disclosure and provides limited auditability","Whole-study records-retention schedules that control file survival without separating active eligibility use from restricted historical retention","Clinical-trial or laboratory management logs that record enrollment events but do not govern paradigm-knowledge exposure as an expiring layer","Immediate deletion or irreversible de-identification after study closure, which reduces retained data but can break authorized follow-up and decision reconstruction"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal's testable contrast is the lifecycle of protocol-relevant exposure layers: ethics-approved review leases limit automatic eligibility authority, protocol-specific review replaces assumptions about forgetting, active screening is separated from restricted retention, and dependency-checked disposition remains reconstructable. Permanent exclusions, self-report, whole-file retention, enrollment logs, or immediate deletion do not implement that complete causal path.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The principal investigator and research ethics authority define permissible exposure classes, review leases, screening uses, and preservation exceptions for each protocol. Authorized pool staff execute only those rules. Data stewards manage tiering and disposition but cannot infer participant naivety or expand eligibility uses. Applicable participant consent, withdrawal rights, and governing requirements override ordinary lifecycle rules.","authorized_first_step":"Build a read-only prototype using synthetic exposure histories and ethics-approved hypothetical protocols, then compare eligibility and retention decisions with the existing manual process. Do not ingest identifiable participant records or change any person's enrollment status.","excluded_actions":["Inferring that elapsed time proves a participant has forgotten a manipulation or hypothesis","Automatically admitting or excluding a participant solely because a lease expired","Sharing a participant's full study history when a narrow eligibility result is sufficient","Combining exposure histories across laboratories or institutions without explicit authority and compatible consent","Retaining deception details beyond their authorized purpose merely because storage is available","Deleting records subject to an unresolved safety, withdrawal, compensation, longitudinal, or audit dependency","Using exposure history to infer diagnosis, personality, research cooperativeness, or employment suitability","Changing completed-study data or consent records through ledger cleanup"],"halt_rollback":"Halt if the prototype reveals more exposure detail than the receiving protocol requires, produces an eligibility result without a traceable rule, misses a protected dependency, or cannot restore a quarantined test layer. Disable lifecycle-based screening, restore all test layers to their prior states, preserve the audit record, and return to the existing authorized enrollment procedure."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Protocol-relevant effects of prior exposure may not follow a predictable time course, making expiring holds an unreliable proxy. A ledger could also create a sensitive cross-study dossier whose privacy and participation harms exceed the ambiguity it resolves.","problem_falsifier":"A bounded audit shows that existing screening already records narrow protocol-specific rationales, consistently revalidates prior exposures, never treats old histories as permanent exclusions without justification, minimizes active disclosure, and reconstructs every sampled eligibility decision and protected dependency.","intervention_falsifier":"In controlled eligibility scenarios, the ledger does not reduce unjustified exclusions or missed protocol conflicts, or it increases disclosure of irrelevant study history, inconsistent reviews, dependency misses, processing time, restoration failures, or participant-perceived surveillance beyond predeclared tolerances.","risks":["The ledger could become a cross-study behavioral dossier.","Paradigm classifications may reveal deception or hypotheses that should remain restricted.","Lease durations may create false precision about persistence of prior-knowledge effects.","Reviewers may mechanically renew every hold, recreating permanent exclusion.","Expired holds may be misread as proof of restored naivety.","Pseudonymous records may remain linkable to individuals.","Incomplete dependency mapping could compromise longitudinal follow-up or participant protections.","Broad paradigm-family labels could exclude participants from unrelated studies.","Disposition markers could themselves accumulate or disclose sensitive participation facts.","Extra screening governance could delay enrollment without improving decisions."]},"next_evidence_step":"Create a preregistered set of synthetic participant histories containing repeated paradigms, disclosed hypotheses, incomplete debriefing, longitudinal dependencies, withdrawn participation, adverse-event review, duplicate records, and old exposures of uncertain relevance. Have authorized research staff make admission, exclusion, disclosure, retention, and disposition decisions using either a representative manual baseline or the read-only ledger prototype. Measure justified and unjustified exclusions, missed protocol conflicts, irrelevant-history disclosure, dependency misses, decision consistency, reconstruction accuracy, and time. Perform one quarantine-and-restore drill on synthetic records. Do not use identifiable histories or affect actual recruitment; stop if the prototype reveals substantive exposure details where only an eligibility result is authorized.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 governs clinician-authored hypotheses within patient care; proposal 4 instead governs research-participation exposure events and their temporary authority over protocol eligibility, without evaluating a patient or altering clinical reasoning. Proposal 2 governs participant-owned goals competing for a bounded attention and reminder tier; proposal 4 neither manages personal commitments nor uses an active-goal capacity budget, and its decision authority belongs to research protocols and ethics governance. Proposal 3 governs executable psychometric norm packages so current scoring uses an authorized calibration layer; proposal 4 governs person-linked exposure records so prior participation is neither an unjustified permanent exclusion nor prematurely forgotten. Its distinct causal path is repeated research exposure to expiring eligibility holds, protocol-specific reassessment, restricted historical retention, and dependency-safe disposition. It can be adopted by a participant pool independently of clinical formulation, behavior-change, or psychometric scoring systems.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Generate proposal index 4 as one complete candidate","Address a psychology problem materially different from proposals 1, 2, and 3","Use a distinct intervention and causal path faithful to managed layer expiration","Explain diversity from every earlier sealed proposal","Specify operational authority, safeguards, rivals, falsifiers, and bounded evidence"],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}