{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_external_scrutiny_20260804","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences","opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__earth_sciences__B","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["geologic hazard map superseded archive current version metadata","outdated hazard maps used by planners emergency managers study","obsolete flood maps risk decisions outdated FEMA maps official report","geological hazard map version confusion obsolete operational use"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC5","SRC6"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["hazard map lifecycle review update archive authoritative version emergency management","hazard map archived superseded catalogue","site:usgs.gov hazard map superseded current","geological survey publication policy superseded publications archive retention"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC5"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["geologic hazard map withdrawn retired deprecated superseded archive","government open data obsolete dataset superseded metadata status discoverability geospatial","scientific data revisions tombstone withdrawn prior version","legacy geological maps current superseded professional use"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["geospatial metadata superseded replacedBy lifecycle status standard ISO 19115","geospatial data lifecycle management superseded archived retention dependencies legal hold standard","ISO 19165 long-term preservation geospatial reconstruction provenance","government dataset metadata expires supersededBy"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["carte aléa obsolète remplacée archive version géologique catalogue","Gefahrenkarte veraltet ersetzt archiviert Version geologischer Dienst","Gefahrenkartierung alte Geodaten historisiert archiviert aktueller Datensatz","carte géologique ancienne édition métadonnées fréquence mise à jour"],"source_ids":["SRC1"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["geospatial data revision downstream dependencies litigation holds prior versions","hazard layer supersession link archival reconstruction authoritative owner review cadence","geospatial preservation provenance context future reconstruction standard","dataset metadata expires supersededBy unique identifier timeline"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Gefahrenkartierung: Dokumentation kantonales minimales Geodatenmodell, Version 1.2","url":"https://models.geo.gl.ch/pdf/GL_Gefahrenkartierung_V1_2.pdf","publisher":"Kanton Glarus, Bau und Umwelt, Raumentwicklung und Geoinformation","date_or_year":"2020-11-13","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"German","claims_supported":["Hazard maps are snapshots whose currency must be reviewed by the natural-hazards authority.","After review, updated hazard geodata replace earlier data; old data are historicized and archived.","The operational geodatabase keeps only one valid dataset, and the public viewer is supplied with current data.","Named natural-hazards and geoinformation offices own review, acceptance, archiving, and publication responsibilities."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"How are USGS publication series scientific information products revised or superseded?","url":"https://www.usgs.gov/office-of-science-quality-and-integrity/fundamental-science-practices/faq/082-updating-revising-usgs-series-products","publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Science Quality and Integrity","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["A Center Director can authorize supersession of a scientific information product.","USGS adds reciprocal notices and links between superseded and superseding products.","Superseded products remain retrievable because they may have DOIs and citations."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Guidance on Documenting Revisions to USGS Scientific Digital Data Releases","url":"https://www.usgs.gov/office-of-science-quality-and-integrity/guidance-documenting-revisions-usgs-scientific-digital-data","publisher":"U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Science Quality and Integrity","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["USGS uses five revision levels based on impact on data use and automated dependencies.","Structural changes that may break downstream services require retained prior versions and separate landing-page or DOI treatment.","Metadata must document and link newer versions, and withdrawn-data pages point to replacements and explain prior-version access.","Prior data and metadata are preserved for records-management and litigation-hold needs, with authorizer consultation where conclusions may be affected."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"FGDC Technical Guidance: Data.gov and The GeoPlatform Metadata Recommendations","url":"https://www.fgdc.gov/technical-guidance/metadata/fgdc-technical-guidance-datagov-geoplatform-ngda.pdf","publisher":"Federal Geographic Data Committee","date_or_year":"2022-11-22 revision","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["ISO 19115-1 date codes include expiry, last review, next update, superseded, and validity-expiration dates.","ISO 19115-1 progress codes distinguish historical archive, obsolete, retired, superseded, withdrawn, deprecated, tentative, valid, and other states.","The guidance identifies responsible organizations and standardized machine-readable metadata as geospatial stewardship best practice.","The document is best-practice guidance rather than a mandatory compliance rule."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"BGS Geology","url":"https://www.bgs.ac.uk/datasets/bgs-geology/","publisher":"British Geological Survey","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["BGS describes geological mapping as an evolving product updated through strategic survey and ad hoc review.","BGS states that digital mapping is the latest interpretation and that all paper-archive maps are superseded.","Professional users are directed to current GeoIndex data, while archived scans remain available for legacy use and interpretation history.","BGS acknowledges non-sequential updates, discrepancies across scales and versions, and incomplete digital archival coverage."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"FEMA Flood Maps: Better Planning and Analysis Needed to Address Current and Future Flood Hazards","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104079","publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","date_or_year":"2021-10-25","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["GAO found that examined FEMA products did not comprehensively reflect current and future hazards or the best available climate science.","Flood maps guide insurance and mitigation decisions by property owners, planners, insurers, and others.","FEMA is the identifiable producer and updater, and GAO identified program-planning and usefulness-assessment gaps.","The audit used agency documents, data analysis, and interviews with FEMA, states, localities, and mapping experts."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"ISO 19165-1:2018 Geographic information — Preservation of digital data and metadata — Part 1: Fundamentals","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/67325.html","publisher":"International Organization for Standardization","date_or_year":"2018-05; confirmed 2023","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The standard specifies long-term preservation requirements for digital geospatial data.","Preservation includes metadata, provenance, context, representation information, and other content needed for understanding and reuse.","A self-describing archival information package must support future dataset reconstruction without external documentation."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Record information about data sets you share with others","url":"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/record-information-about-data-sets-you-share-with-others","publisher":"UK Government Digital Service and Central Digital and Data Office","date_or_year":"2020-08-07","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Government metadata guidance recommends expires and supersededBy properties so users know which version to use.","Superseded versions and replacements receive distinct identifiers, while supersedes can expose the resource timeline.","An expiry date marks when a dataset is no longer valid and prompts metadata re-review.","The page directs geospatial publishers to spatial-specific GEMINI and INSPIRE guidance, making this an adjacent general-data practice."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The operational-currentness problem is externally supported: GAO documented flood products that failed to reflect important current hazards, while BGS warns that archived maps contain older interpretations and directs professional users to current digital data. The exact hypothesized catalog failure—multiple same-area hazard releases remaining similarly discoverable without reliable status, causing observed obsolete-release selection—was not demonstrated by the retained evidence. Indeed, the Glarus, BGS, and USGS examples show institutions already separating current and superseded material.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC5","SRC6"],"uncertainty":"No retained source reports a preregistered catalog audit or measures how often planners or emergency managers select a superseded release. Outdated scientific content is not identical to ambiguous release status."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Authorizers and adopters are identifiable. Glarus assigns review and disposition to its natural-hazards office and publication to its geoinformation office; USGS assigns revision decisions to authors, data managers, supervisors, Center Directors, and Bureau Approving Officials; FEMA owns flood-map production and updates. Planners and emergency managers are documented downstream users.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC6"],"uncertainty":"Authority allocation varies by jurisdiction, and records officers or emergency-management approvers were not documented for every catalog."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Most core mechanisms are already implementable and documented in official practice: current-only operational publication with archived predecessors, explicit supersession links, revision tiers, dependency-impact treatment, preservation under litigation holds, lifecycle status/date codes, named owners, and reconstruction-capable archives. Evidence is weaker for value/risk scoring, orphan detection, storage tiers, deletion rollback windows, and automated changed-context detection.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"Policies and data-model documentation do not establish consistent execution, user compliance, or effectiveness across hazard catalogs and external mirrors."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Canton Glarus hazard-map update and archiving workflow","source_ids":["SRC1"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"An operating hazard-map regime assigns owners, treats maps as time-bound interpretations, reviews and replaces prior geodata, archives historical data, maintains one valid operational dataset, and publishes current data to the viewer.","remaining_difference":"It does not document dependency graphs, litigation holds, value/misuse scores, deletion-impact estimates, rollback windows, or a controlled user-selection experiment comparing richer labels with a latest pointer."},{"name":"USGS scientific-data revision and supersession controls","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"USGS already uses revision severity levels, reciprocal replacement links, version history, withdrawal/tombstone treatment, downstream-service impact checks, retention for citations and litigation holds, and named scientific authorizers.","remaining_difference":"The guidance covers scientific information products generally rather than a hazard-layer registry with operational visibility states and stale-map selection as the measured outcome."},{"name":"BGS current digital geology versus superseded paper archive","source_ids":["SRC5"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"BGS exposes a latest digital interpretation for professional use while keeping all superseded paper maps available as a clearly described legacy archive for historical comparison.","remaining_difference":"This is geological mapping rather than a multi-hazard operational catalog, and the page does not describe dependency checks, holds, deletion governance, or user-error measurement."},{"name":"ISO/FGDC geospatial lifecycle metadata and preservation package","source_ids":["SRC4","SRC7"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Standardized metadata already represents expiry, review, validity, archive, obsolete, retired, superseded, withdrawn, and deprecated states; ISO preservation requirements retain provenance and context sufficient for reconstruction.","remaining_difference":"The standards supply representations and archival requirements, not a hazard-specific governance workflow, catalog search default, adjudication procedure, or comparative effectiveness result."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"In a hazard catalog that already has a canonical current pointer and recoverable archive, adding steward-adjudicated authority, dependency/hold, and changed-context states to search results will reduce selection of superseded releases in blinded operational tasks without incorrectly demoting more than 2% of steward-confirmed current or dependency-critical layers and without impairing reconstruction.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if a preregistered audit finds that the rival already has complete authority, supersession, dependency, and hold information with no superseded-as-current use, or if richer lifecycle labels fail to reduce obsolete-release selection, demote more than 2% of confirmed current/dependency-critical layers, or prevent reconstruction of a retained release.","confidence":"MODERATE","search_limitations":"This was a bounded public-web search in English, German, and French terminology using exactly eight retained and opened sources. It did not audit live catalog search rankings, inspect internal records systems, measure copied-file or mirror behavior, survey every jurisdiction, or conduct an exhaustive scholarly, standards, product, or patent search."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Official evidence establishes that hazard-map currentness matters operationally, that some products omit current hazards, and that surveys explicitly separate superseded interpretations from current products. The narrower claim of observed ambiguity-driven selection remains unverified but is suitable for the proposed audit.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC5","SRC6"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Geological-survey product owners, natural-hazards offices, geoinformation offices, Center Directors, Bureau Approving Officials, and FEMA are identifiable authorizers or adopters.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC6"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although the lifecycle package is established practice, a distinct local effectiveness claim remains: richer adjudicated states may outperform a canonical latest pointer in blinded selection tasks while meeting a quantitative false-demotion bound.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A 30-day read-only audit of 50 releases followed by blinded sandbox tasks is bounded, reversible, and produces direct evidence on status completeness, disagreement, obsolete selection, false demotion, and reconstruction.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The proposed first step performs no production deletion, boundary change, warning change, or access removal. Existing practice supports steward authorization, dependency-impact review, retained prior versions, litigation holds, and reconstruction. Halt conditions address the principal safety risks.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC7"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially using direct, historical, standards/product, regional non-English, and component-combination terminology. Exactly eight retained sources were opened; they span five independent institutional publishers and are predominantly official, standards, or first-party materials.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"First audit one live hazard catalog to determine whether the documented lifecycle controls are actually complete. If gaps exist, preregister the 30-day read-only, 50-release adjudication and blinded sandbox comparison against the canonical-latest-pointer rival, measuring obsolete selection, adjudication disagreement, false demotion, dependency/hold misses, and successful reconstruction; make no production changes.","world_novelty_boundary":"The bounded search found established hazard-map and scientific-data lifecycle practices, so no world-novelty claim is warranted. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact, or absence of additional prior art."}