{"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__C","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["digital history exhibits outdated interpretation superseded annotations archival repository discovery","digital editions versioning superseded annotations provenance historical corpus","museum digital exhibit outdated interpretation label archive prior version","living digital archive contextual essays outdated metadata user confusion"],"source_ids":["S1","S6","S7"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["digital humanities annotation status superseded contested archived discovery ranking provenance","Wikidata deprecated rank statements references preferred rank official help","digital scholarly edition annotations version lifecycle superseded","versioning digital scholarly editions citation archive retrieve previous versions"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S8"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["archival reappraisal deaccession digital collections contextual metadata lifecycle","annotation lifecycle digital humanities archive provenance","versioning digital scholarly editions citation archive retrieve previous versions","museum interpretation audit outdated labels decolonisation preserve old labels"],"source_ids":["S2","S6","S7"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["site:w3.org annotation deprecated superseded provenance web annotation","site:loc.gov digital preservation superseded version provenance standard PREMIS","DataCite IsNewVersionOf IsPreviousVersionOf metadata relation type official","Crossmark current version updates corrections retractions official"],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["digitale Edition Versionierung frühere Versionen aktuelle Fassung zitierbar Archiv","musée étiquettes anciennes interprétation obsolète mise à jour conserver histoire","museos etiquetas interpretación obsoleta actualizar conservar versiones anteriores","archivos digitales capas interpretativas versionado obsoleto procedencia"],"source_ids":["S8"],"no_result_note":null},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["digital humanities annotation status superseded contested archived discovery ranking provenance","museum interpretation audit outdated labels decolonisation preserve old labels","digital editions versioning superseded annotations provenance historical corpus","DataCite IsNewVersionOf IsPreviousVersionOf metadata relation type official"],"source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S6","S7","S8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"“What the Heck Am I Looking At?”: A User-Based Examination of the Metadata Associated with Digital Archival Objects","url":"https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol11/iss1/8/","publisher":"Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies","date_or_year":"2024","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Interviews with 21 academic historians found that understanding the original context of digital archival objects is a significant user challenge.","Historians rely on metadata to interpret digital objects and connect them to their physical and institutional context."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Digital Editions and Version Numbering","url":"https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/14/2/000455/000455.html","publisher":"Digital Humanities Quarterly / Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations","date_or_year":"2020","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Living digital editions can be changed after publication in ways that complicate long-term reference.","Meaningful version identifiers and access to identifiable versions support provenance, citation, and intelligibility.","The Piers Plowman Electronic Archive provides a domain-specific version-policy case study."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Help:Ranking","url":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Ranking/en-gb","publisher":"Wikidata / Wikimedia Foundation","date_or_year":"Current help page, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Wikidata implements normal, preferred, and deprecated states for sourced statements.","Preferred statements are returned by default in templates and queries, while deprecated statements are excluded unless specifically requested.","Deprecation preserves the evolution of ideas and discourages reintroduction of known errors rather than deleting lineage.","Correct historical information should receive temporal qualifiers rather than deprecation, demonstrating a relevant anti-presentism safeguard."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Connecting to Works","url":"https://support.datacite.org/docs/connecting-to-works","publisher":"DataCite","date_or_year":"Current documentation, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The DataCite metadata model supplies explicit version, successor, predecessor, derivation, citation, and metadata relationships.","IsNewVersionOf and IsPreviousVersionOf are prescribed when one version supersedes another.","Version relationships are exposed through the DataCite REST API and can support dependency mapping."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Crossmark — registering updates","url":"https://support.crossref.org/hc/en-us/articles/115000501246-Crossmark-registering-updates","publisher":"Crossref","date_or_year":"Current documentation, accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Crossmark lets readers determine whether a scholarly work has received a status-changing correction, retraction, or withdrawal.","Significant updates are normally represented by separately identified notices linked to the original rather than silent in-place replacement.","Crossref warns that in-place updates obscure the scholarly record and complicate citation comparison."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Historic Exhibitions Labels at Museums Victoria: Archiving Didactic Interpretation","url":"https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/articles/17706","publisher":"Museums Victoria","date_or_year":"Undated; describes a project begun in 2023","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Museums Victoria intentionally acquired historic exhibition labels to document shifts in institutional priorities, disciplines, curatorship, and interpretation.","Historic interpretive material has historiographic value even after it ceases to be current public guidance.","The institution identifies curatorial, design, and collections staff who can authorize and operate interpretation-management work."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"We Tried This: Reimagining Our Labels","url":"https://artmuseuminterp.org/we-tried-this-reimagining-our-labels/","publisher":"Association for Art Museum Interpretation","date_or_year":"2023-01-09","source_type":"TRADE_PROFESSIONAL","language":"English","claims_supported":["A museum interpretation team attempted a systematic review of every collection label because some used outdated or harmful language.","The effort required collaboration and buy-in from curatorial, community, and access departments.","The case demonstrates both an identifiable adopter and the governance difficulty of classifying interpretation as harmful or obsolete."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Digitale Methodik — edition humboldt digital","url":"https://edition-humboldt.de/about/","publisher":"Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities","date_or_year":"Version 11, 2025; accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"German","claims_supported":["The historical digital edition retains each annual published version for retrieval.","It supplies version history, version-specific permalinks, citation guidance, and canonical URLs that resolve to the latest version.","Its implementation preserves old states and dependencies while distinguishing the current public version."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Public evidence supports the underlying context and maintenance problem: historians report difficulty interpreting digital archival objects without adequate context, digital editions change continuously, and museum teams encounter outdated or harmful interpretation requiring systematic review. Evidence also shows that superseded interpretation can have historiographic value. No retained study directly measures the proposal's narrower state—multiple interpretive overlays remaining equally prominent—or resulting mistaken-current selections in a living history corpus.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7"],"uncertainty":"The documented problems concern contextual metadata, mutable editions, and museum labels rather than a measured population of coexisting digital-history overlays. Prevalence and effect size are unknown."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Identifiable adopters and authorizers exist: digital-edition editors and publishers, museum interpretation and curatorial teams, archivists, community/access staff, and repository stewards. The sources document these actors operating review, versioning, preservation, and publication systems.","source_ids":["S2","S6","S7","S8"],"uncertainty":"The precise governing board and source-community representation would depend on the pilot institution; public sources do not establish that every repository already has the proposed cross-functional authority."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Most technical primitives are already feasible: explicit current/deprecated ranks with query consequences, temporal qualifiers, successor/predecessor and dependency links, update notices, version-specific permalinks, canonical-current URLs, and preservation of historic interpretation. The retained evidence does not show one routine system combining exhaustive overlay inventory, contested/preserved exceptions, risk scoring, review cadence, shadow search demotion, dependency checks, rollback, and distributional-impact auditing for living history corpora.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S8"],"uncertainty":"Feasibility of individual components is stronger than evidence for the integrated workflow or its effect on reader accuracy, search time, plurality, and citation integrity."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Wikidata statement ranking and default-query behavior","source_ids":["S3"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Implements preferred, normal, and deprecated states; retains sourced outdated claims; records reasons and time qualifiers; and removes deprecated claims from ordinary query/template output unless explicitly requested.","remaining_difference":"It governs structured knowledge-base statements, not heterogeneous essays, exhibits, annotations, and derived datasets in a bounded historical corpus; it lacks the proposed cross-role review cadence, preservation-exception register, dependency-impact test, and controlled user experiment."},{"name":"Versioned digital scholarly editions","source_ids":["S2","S8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Identifies successive published states, makes earlier versions retrievable and citable, documents changes, preserves provenance, and directs canonical URLs to the current version.","remaining_difference":"Versioning treats publication states rather than classifying individual interpretive overlays as active, superseded, contested, or preservation-only, and it does not test discovery demotion or representational harms."},{"name":"Crossmark status updates","source_ids":["S5"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Links separately identified corrections, withdrawals, and retractions to preserved scholarly works so readers can learn current status without silently rewriting the record.","remaining_difference":"It covers publication-status events, not the lifecycle of plural historiographic interpretation, search ranking, exceptions, or repository-level review."},{"name":"Museum label review plus historic-label archiving","source_ids":["S6","S7"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Institutions systematically confront outdated interpretation while recognizing that superseded labels retain evidence about changing curatorial priorities and disciplinary histories.","remaining_difference":"The cases describe rewriting current labels and separately collecting historic ones, not an integrated, reversible state-and-discovery system for digital overlays."},{"name":"DataCite version and dependency relations","source_ids":["S4"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Standardized relations express supersession, version sequence, derivation, citation, parts, and metadata dependencies.","remaining_difference":"The standard supplies relationship primitives but not editorial status decisions, discovery authority, preservation exceptions, review governance, or outcome testing."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"For a bounded living digital-history collection that currently lacks overlay-level lifecycle states, adding human-reviewed active/superseded/contested/archive labels plus reversible shadow demotion and dependency safeguards will reduce mistaken-current selections and interpretation time relative to version history alone, without exceeding preset tolerances for missed legitimate accounts, protected-group disparities, or citation failures.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"In blinded comparison tasks, the lifecycle interface and shadow ranking do not reduce mistaken-current selections or interpretation time relative to the existing interface, or they increase omission of relevant/contested accounts, group-disparate demotion, or citation failures beyond preregistered tolerances.","confidence":"MODERATE","search_limitations":"The bounded search covered six lanes and retained exactly eight opened sources from independent publishers, including research, official standards, and first-party implementations. It was not an exhaustive bibliographic, product, repository, or patent search; non-English coverage was limited to German, French, and Spanish terminology; proprietary workflows and unindexed projects may be absent; and documentation pages can change."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Research and professional cases independently establish context difficulty, mutable digital editions, outdated interpretation, and the value of retaining earlier interpretive states, although the proposal's exact prevalence remains unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S6","S7"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Digital-edition editors, museum interpretation and curatorial teams, archivists, community/access staff, and repository publishers are identifiable actors already performing adjacent work.","source_ids":["S2","S6","S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Existing systems establish versioning, status ranking, and provenance separately, but leave a testable increment combining overlay-level lifecycle labels, reversible discovery demotion, pluralism safeguards, and measured reader outcomes in a history corpus.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S5","S8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"One frozen finite collection can be exhaustively inventoried and evaluated through a nonpublic shadow index and blinded tasks, with no deletion or public relabeling required.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The first test can remain reversible and nonpublic. Known hazards can be bounded through cross-functional approval, temporal qualifiers for valid historical claims, explicit contested/preserved states, group-impact checks, citation testing, and immediate restoration of the original index.","source_ids":["S3","S6","S7"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially. Eight direct sources were opened and retained, spanning eight publisher or institutional contexts and including primary research, an official metadata standard, and multiple first-party practices.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5","S6","S7","S8"]}},"strict_success":true,"screen_survival":true,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"With repository-board approval, freeze one finite collection and enumerate every interpretive overlay, owner, date, source, citation, dependency, and current discovery position. Independently assign proposed lifecycle states with documented reasons and protected-account exceptions. Build a nonpublic shadow index comparing the existing ranking, labels-only, and labels-plus-demotion conditions. Run preregistered blinded interpretation tasks measuring mistaken-current selection, completion time, relevant-account omissions, protected-group demotion rates, and citation failures. Halt and restore the original index if any preset tolerance is exceeded; do not delete, alter primary sources, or publicly relabel material during the pilot.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web review supports only a contrast against the retained sources. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, routine prevalence across all repositories, or realized scholarly and public impact."}