{"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__history_historiography","opaque_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__history_historiography__B","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["museum exhibit outdated interpretation label revised retain old labels historiography","historical knowledge base superseded claims current status label provenance review date","digital history exhibit outdated interpretation correction archive previous version","readers mistake outdated historical information current museum labels study","empirical study museum labels influence visitor interpretation historical exhibit"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC7"],"no_result_note":"Sources document outdated active descriptions and show that labels guide visitor interpretation, but no retained source directly measured readers mistaking superseded interpretations for current editorial judgment."},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["museum claim-level version registry superseded label demote archive scheduled review","archival description legacy copy revision log date rationale discovery ranking outdated terminology","cultural heritage knowledge graph deprecated statements provenance version history rank","museum interpretation lifecycle review cadence supersession audit trail rollback"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["museum \"outdated labels\" interpretation 1990","museum \"old labels\" \"new labels\" retain historical interpretation","museum permanent exhibition \"relabeling\" outdated interpretation history","library catalog \"outdated terminology\" retain original term historical record contextualize"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["Wikidata deprecated rank statements reason for deprecated rank official help","Wikipedia outdated template article update date official policy historical information superseded","W3C provenance invalidation revision specializationOf invalidatedAtTime standard","museum digital collections version history superseded interpretation provenance standard CIDOC CRM"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["musée anciennes étiquettes conserver ajouter nouvelle interprétation obsolète cartel exposition","museo cartelas antiguas conservar contextualizar interpretaciones obsoletas exposición","Museum alte Beschriftungen erhalten neue Kontextualisierung überholte Deutung","decolonización museos etiquetas obsoletas revisión cartelas colecciones"],"source_ids":["SRC6"],"no_result_note":"French official guidance was retained. Spanish and German searches produced regional discussion of relabeling and decolonization but no closer operational lifecycle system than the retained sources."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["museum claim-level version registry superseded label demote archive scheduled review","archival description legacy copy revision log date rationale discovery ranking outdated terminology","cultural heritage knowledge graph deprecated statements provenance version history rank","museum interpretation lifecycle review cadence supersession audit trail rollback"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Rethinking museum labels","url":"https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/in-practice/2020/02/01032020-rethinking-museum-labels/","publisher":"Museums Association","date_or_year":"2020-02-28","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","language":"English","claims_supported":["Museum labels carry institutional interpretation and remain a primary communication channel.","Changing scholarship, social attitudes, and decolonization pressures have prompted relabeling and contextualization.","Permanent-gallery interpretation is difficult and uncommon to edit continuously, while community participation is increasingly expected."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"History of the Museum","url":"https://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/history-museum","publisher":"Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["The museum retains old labels as evidence of earlier museum and anthropological thinking.","It acknowledges that retained labels contain derogatory, hurtful, and out-of-date terminology.","Its Labelling Matters project added contextual interventions, while resource limits prevent replacement of every outdated label."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Help:Ranking","url":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help%3ARanking","publisher":"Wikidata, Wikimedia Foundation community","date_or_year":"Last edited 2026-07-06","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Wikidata implements statement-level normal, preferred, and deprecated lifecycle-like ranks.","Preferred rank can designate current or consensus statements; deprecated rank covers errors and outdated knowledge formerly believed correct.","Deprecated statements remain sourced and available as evidence of knowledge evolution but are excluded from default templates and queries.","Qualifiers can record dates and reasons for preferred or deprecated status."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","date_or_year":"2013","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["PROV-O standardizes agents, activities, derivation, revision, specialization, generation, and invalidation metadata.","It supports version lineage, attribution, invalidation time, and the activity responsible for invalidation.","It supplies provenance infrastructure but does not itself define editorial consensus or discovery-ranking policy."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Guidelines for Reparative and Inclusive Description","url":"https://library.wlu.ca/laurier-archives/guidelines-reparative-and-inclusive-description","publisher":"Wilfrid Laurier University Library, Archives and Special Collections","date_or_year":"Undated; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Legacy archival descriptions contain outdated language and stereotypes that affect researchers and perpetuate bias.","The institution replaces or contextualizes problematic active description while retaining historical terminology where justified for discovery.","The guidance calls for community input, citations, processing notes, feedback, and biennial review.","It identifies archives staff as implementers and preserves original records rather than rewriting them."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"Les cartels dans un musée de France","url":"https://www.culture.gouv.fr/thematiques/musees/pour-les-professionnels/construire-un-musee/gerer-le-mobilier-et-l-equipement/les-cartels-dans-un-musee-de-france","publisher":"Ministère de la Culture, France","date_or_year":"2025-07-31","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"French","claims_supported":["Object identification and interpretation are treated as required museum functions.","Scientific museum personnel are assigned responsibility for authoring labels so information remains closely certified to collections.","Label media and presentation are expected to evolve with collections and public-access needs."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Looking to Read: How Visitors Use Exhibit Labels in the Art Museum","url":"https://ucrisportal.univie.ac.at/en/publications/looking-to-read-how-visitors-use-exhibit-labels-in-the-art-museum/","publisher":"Visitor Studies / University of Vienna research portal","date_or_year":"2022","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["A peer-reviewed empirical study used mobile eye tracking, questionnaires, and before/after comparison to examine label use.","Visitors read labels to differing degrees, and contextual information changed viewing, memory, and interpretation.","The methods demonstrate that a bounded visitor study of label effects is feasible, although the study did not test mistaken-current attribution."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Statement of Principles — Describing Archives: A Content Standard, Version 2022.0.4","url":"https://saa-ts-dacs.github.io/dacs/04_statement_of_principles.html","publisher":"Society of American Archivists, Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard","date_or_year":"2022.0.4","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Archival description is defined as iterative, user-centered, and responsive to changing knowledge and values.","Archivists must document and make discoverable their interventions and the sources and limits of their knowledge.","The standard requires attention to provenance, relationships, community engagement, accountability, and user-driven reasons for enhancing descriptions.","It cautions that descriptive ordering and intervention exercise institutional power and can alter users' understanding."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The underlying condition is externally supported: museums and archives acknowledge that old labels and legacy descriptions remain accessible with outdated, harmful, or context-bound language, and empirical research shows that labels guide visitors' attention, memory, and interpretation. The stronger causal assertion—that readers commonly mistake superseded interpretations for current institutional conclusions and then make citation or teaching errors—was not directly demonstrated by the retained evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The prevalence and consequence of mistaken-current attribution are unknown. Existing evidence concerns outdated terminology, harmful description, and label influence, not the proposal's under-5% falsification threshold or downstream citation error."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Identifiable adopters and authorizers exist: museum scientific and interpretation staff, archives and special-collections staff, Wikidata editors operating under community consensus, and institutional collections or editorial leadership. French guidance explicitly assigns museum-label authorship to scientific personnel; professional standards assign accountable descriptive interventions to archivists.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC5","SRC6","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"The exact board with authority to approve discovery demotion and appeals would be institution-specific, especially where exhibit platforms, records law, donors, or represented communities share authority."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Most core mechanisms already operate in adjacent systems: Wikidata retains sourced outdated statements while marking them deprecated and excluding them from default queries; archival guidance replaces or contextualizes legacy descriptions, records interventions, consults communities, and schedules periodic review; PROV-O supplies revision and invalidation lineage. Museum interventions also preserve old labels while adding current context. No retained source showed the entire proposed matrix—claim inventory, age/risk triggers, differentiated access tiers, preservation exceptions, rollback, and randomized evaluation—implemented together for interpretive claims in one historical exhibit.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"Operational cost, consistency of claim-level adjudication, appeal burden, and effects on viewpoint representation remain unmeasured in the proposed setting."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Wikidata statement ranks and default-query filtering","source_ids":["SRC3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Individually sourced statements receive normal, preferred, or deprecated status; current or consensus values can be preferred, outdated knowledge can be deprecated, reasons and dates can be attached, and deprecated claims remain recoverable while disappearing from default templates and queries.","remaining_difference":"Wikidata is a general structured knowledge base rather than a governed historical exhibit, and the retained source does not report visitor-error outcomes, scheduled review triggers, community appeals, or workload."},{"name":"Reparative and inclusive archival description","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Legacy descriptions are reviewed, revised or contextualized, documented as institutional interventions, connected to provenance, informed by communities, and treated as an iterative lifecycle rather than immutable text.","remaining_difference":"The practice is usually record-, field-, file-, or collection-level rather than a registry of individually citable interpretive claims, and it does not generally specify discovery demotion or a controlled comparison against label-only treatment."},{"name":"Pitt Rivers Museum old-label retention and contextual intervention","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Outdated and harmful historical labels are deliberately retained as historiographic evidence while new interventions highlight their problematic status and introduce current perspectives.","remaining_difference":"The old material often remains physically prominent, comprehensive updating is acknowledged as infeasible, and there is no evidenced preferred/deprecated discovery state or claim-level review cadence."},{"name":"W3C PROV-O revision and invalidation model","source_ids":["SRC4"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Provides standardized identifiers, agents, revisions, invalidation events and times, derivation, version lineage, and provenance-of-provenance needed for audit and reconstruction.","remaining_difference":"It is infrastructure rather than an editorial lifecycle policy and supplies no rule for deciding whether an interpretation is current, contested, superseded, harmful, or discoverable by default."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"The credible remaining claim is an effectiveness and governance claim, not a mechanism-novelty claim: in a bounded digital historical exhibit where stale interpretive claims are individually identified, adding a reversible current/contextual/superseded status plus ordinary-discovery demotion will reduce mistaken-current selections by at least 20% relative to equally prominent label-only treatment, without materially harming citation resolution, retrieval, viewpoint representation, community acceptance, or curator workload.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"A blinded baseline finds mistaken-current attribution below 5%; or, where the problem is present, status-plus-demotion fails to improve mistaken-current selections by at least 20% over label-only treatment; or it materially worsens retrieval, stable citation resolution, representation, appeal rates, affected-community assessment, or curator workload.","confidence":"HIGH","search_limitations":"The review was capped at exactly eight retained public sources and six search lanes. It included English and French retained evidence plus Spanish, French, and German search terminology, but did not exhaust subscription literature, internal museum procedures, platform code, patents, or every regional practice. Absence of an exact randomized exhibit study is not evidence of world novelty."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Multiple independent museum and archive publishers acknowledge accessible outdated descriptions, and primary research establishes that labels affect visitor interpretation. The precise error rate remains an empirical question suitable for the proposed audit.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC7"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Museum scientific or interpretation personnel and archives or collections staff are identifiable operators; accountable institutional editorial or collections leadership can authorize display-state changes and community consultation.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC6","SRC8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Although lifecycle ranking is established, the incremental comparison of status-plus-demotion against label-only treatment for interpretive historical claims, using mistaken-current attribution and harm measures, is distinct and falsifiable.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC5","SRC7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A one-exhibit blinded baseline followed, only if warranted, by an eight-week randomized comparison over approximately 100 eligible claims is bounded, reversible, and measurable with established visitor-study methods.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A labels-and-ranking pilot can preserve original sources, provenance, stable citations, and restoration paths. Human authorization, transparent intervention logs, community engagement, and rollback address the main suppression and presentism risks; no irreversible deletion is needed.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially using direct, historical, product/standard, non-English, and component-combination terminology. Exactly eight retained sources were opened, span eight publisher contexts, and include primary research, official standards, official guidance, and first-party systems.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Do not treat the lifecycle mechanism itself as novel. First run a preregistered blinded baseline on representative claims from one digital exhibit to estimate mistaken-current attribution and downstream citation or teaching error. Stop if the error rate is below 5%. If it is at least 5%, have the authorized editorial body and affected-community reviewers define eligible claims and exclusions, then randomize reversible status-plus-demotion versus label-only treatment for eight weeks, measuring mistaken-current selection, retrieval, citation resolution, viewpoint representation, appeals, and curator time.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web review supports a conclusion of established adjacent practice and leaves a context-specific causal evaluation claim. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, completeness of prior art, routine practice in every institution, or realized impact."}