{"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history archive outdated contextual essays superseded annotations discovery","\"superseded\" interpretation digital archive annotation","museum website outdated interpretation label archive version"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"],"no_result_note":null},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["digital edition versioning superseded annotations provenance discovery status","W3C Web Annotation lifecycle motivation assessing outdated","digital humanities annotation versioning provenance supersession"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["electronic scholarly edition version control revision history apparatus older edition","museum reinterpretation old labels retain archive historiography","archival description revision history obsolete finding aid"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["IIIF annotations versioning provenance standard","W3C PROV invalidation revision specializationOf","Omeka exhibit version history archive plugin","Mukurtu cultural protocols access community records"],"source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["patrimoine numérique notice obsolète mise à jour historique versions","édition numérique annotation périmée version antérieure","archivo digital interpretación desactualizada anotaciones versionado","digitale historische editie verouderde annotaties versiebeheer"],"source_ids":["SRC5","SRC8"],"no_result_note":"French, Spanish, and Dutch searches surfaced regional cataloguing, edition, and preservation practices but no retained source documenting the full proposed lifecycle-and-discovery package."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["annotation provenance superseded relation search ranking archive tombstone rollback","digital collection labels version history broken citations reversible archive","repository stale metadata review cadence preservation exceptions discovery demotion","contested museum interpretation versioning community authority digital exhibit"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"The Endings Project: Building Sustainability for Digital Humanities Projects","url":"https://endings.uvic.ca/","publisher":"University of Victoria, Humanities Computing and Media Centre","date_or_year":"2016–present","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Digital humanities resources need explicit end-of-life planning rather than indefinite unsupported persistence.","Project-level preservation and stabilization are established adjacent practices, but the resource does not prescribe lifecycle states or search demotion for individual interpretive overlays."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"The Labelling Matters Project","url":"https://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/labelling-matters","publisher":"Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford","date_or_year":"2018–2021","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Legacy museum descriptions and labels can perpetuate problematic or outdated interpretive language.","A museum and its curatorial collaborators are identifiable adopters and authorizers for reviewing and revising interpretive layers.","Keeping the history and effects of labels visible is historiographically and ethically important."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Web Annotation Data Model","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium","date_or_year":"2017","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["A standard model exists for annotations with bodies, targets, motivations, creators, creation dates, and modification dates.","The standard supplies interoperable identity and provenance primitives but does not itself establish active, superseded, contested, archived, or preservation-only discovery states."]},{"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":["Standard provenance relations include revision, invalidation, derivation, attribution, and generation times.","These relations can encode lineage and supersession-related events, reducing technical novelty of the proposal's registry and provenance components.","PROV-O does not prescribe user-facing discovery authority, review cadence, impact assessment, or reversible demotion policy."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"Records in Contexts—Conceptual Model, Version 1.0","url":"https://www.ica.org/standards/RiC/records-in-contexts-conceptual-model/","publisher":"International Council on Archives","date_or_year":"2023","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Archival description is modeled through entities, relations, agents, dates, and changing contexts rather than as a single timeless layer.","The international archival standard is adjacent infrastructure for provenance-rich description, not an overlay expiration and discovery-governance regime."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"IIIF Presentation API 3.0","url":"https://iiif.io/api/presentation/3.0/","publisher":"IIIF Consortium","date_or_year":"2020","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["Digital cultural-heritage objects can be presented with linked annotations, metadata, rights, behavior, and structured ranges.","The API provides a substrate on which multiple interpretive overlays can coexist but does not manage their expiration, review urgency, exceptions, or ranking."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"Mukurtu CMS: Cultural Protocols","url":"https://mukurtu.org/features/cultural-protocols/","publisher":"Mukurtu CMS","date_or_year":"current page accessed 2026","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["A deployed digital-heritage system supports community-defined access, sharing, and authority protocols.","Source-community participation and differentiated access are practical governance mechanisms relevant to preventing silent suppression or harmful re-exposure.","Its causal lever is culturally governed access, not staleness-triggered lifecycle management of interpretations."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Principles of Transparency for Scholarly Editions on the Web","url":"https://www.mla.org/Resources/Research-Surveys-Reports-and-Other-Documents/Publishing-and-Scholarship/Reports-and-Guidelines/Principles-of-Transparency-for-Scholarly-Editions-on-the-Web","publisher":"Modern Language Association Committee on Scholarly Editions","date_or_year":"2015","source_type":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","language":"English","claims_supported":["Web scholarly editions should disclose editorial principles, responsibility, selection, alteration, and revision practices.","Transparent revision and edition history are established practices relevant to preventing old interpretation from masquerading as current guidance.","The guidance does not specify systematic state assignment, search demotion, dependency checks, preservation exceptions, or rollback trials."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Public cultural-heritage practice documents a real narrower problem: legacy labels, descriptions, and unsupported digital-humanities resources can remain available after language, context, stewardship, or editorial understanding changes. Standards also confirm that annotations and descriptions are mutable, attributable entities with dates and revision lineage. The retained evidence does not directly establish the proposal's stronger corpus-wide claim that multiple dated overlays commonly remain equally visible or rank as current, nor does it quantify user confusion or search burden.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"No retained empirical user study measures mistaken-current selection, interpretation time, or the prevalence of unlabeled superseded overlays in living history corpora."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"Museums, scholarly-edition boards, digital-humanities centers, archives, and repository stewards already exercise authority over labels, editions, annotations, preservation, and discovery interfaces. The Pitt Rivers Museum project and Mukurtu also demonstrate viable involvement of affected communities; a repository governing board is therefore identifiable even though authority will vary by rights, donor agreements, and community protocol.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"A pilot must establish which board controls indexing and which authors or communities retain consultation, consent, or veto rights for each overlay."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"SUPPORTED","finding":"The technical primitives for a non-destructive pilot already exist: stable annotation identity and dates, provenance and revision relations, structured presentation, edition transparency, differentiated access rules, and project preservation planning. These permit a frozen-collection inventory and shadow ranking test without deletion or public relabeling. Evidence that the integrated intervention improves user judgment remains absent and is the bounded research question.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"Interoperability among local repository indexes, annotation stores, citation resolvers, and rights systems is collection-specific; automatic stale-context detection is not validated by these sources."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Transparent revision and provenance for web scholarly editions","source_ids":["SRC4","SRC8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Makes revision responsibility, edition history, derivation, and invalidation inspectable so earlier states are not mistaken for an unexplained present text.","remaining_difference":"Does not assign every overlay a governed lifecycle state, alter ordinary discovery authority, conduct distributional impact review, or provide shadow demotion and rollback thresholds."},{"name":"Legacy-label review and reinterpretation in museums","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Identifies older interpretive labels as capable of carrying harmful or outdated authority and subjects them to organized curatorial review while attending to their history.","remaining_difference":"The documented project is label-focused and deliberative; the retained source does not show a corpus-wide registry with explicit superseded/archived/contested states, dependency checks, search-ranking trials, exceptions register, and rollback."},{"name":"W3C Web Annotation plus PROV-O","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":false,"overlap":"Supplies identities, timestamps, agents, revision, derivation, and invalidation needed to represent layered interpretations and their lineage.","remaining_difference":"These are representation standards, not a normative or tested lifecycle policy governing when an interpretation loses current discovery prominence."},{"name":"Endings Project sustainability and end-of-life planning","source_ids":["SRC1"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Treats indefinite accumulation and unsupported persistence as a lifecycle problem and plans preservation, stabilization, or conclusion.","remaining_difference":"Operates mainly at project/resource level, not at the level of competing interpretive overlays whose plural historiographic lineage and search authority must be preserved."},{"name":"Community-governed cultural protocols","source_ids":["SRC7"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses explicit governance states and affected-community authority to determine visibility and access in digital heritage collections.","remaining_difference":"Visibility is governed by cultural authority and access protocol rather than evidentiary supersession, failed citations, scope change, review cadence, or mistaken-current use."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"Within one fully enumerated living digital-history collection, adding human-reviewed lifecycle labels and reversible shadow demotion for overlays triggered by supersession, failed citation, or scope change—while retaining provenance, explicit preservation exceptions, community review, and citation-resolving tombstones—will reduce mistaken-current selections and median interpretation time versus existing edition/provenance labels, without exceeding preset tolerances for missed relevant accounts, disproportionate school or community demotion, or citation failure.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"In blinded, counterbalanced retrieval tasks, the intervention produces no prespecified reduction in mistaken-current selection or interpretation time, or causes missed relevant accounts, citation failures, or group-level demotion disparities above the governing board's preregistered tolerance; an inventory showing all overlays already carry effective states and never surface as current would also eliminate the problem-side increment.","confidence":"MODERATE","search_limitations":"The bounded search used English plus French, Spanish, and Dutch terminology and covered standards, deployed products, older edition/cataloguing language, and component combinations. Exactly eight sources were retained and reviewed. Search did not include subscription databases, repository-internal policies, interviews, exhaustive patent review, or systematic sampling of live search rankings. It cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Official and first-party cultural-heritage sources substantiate legacy interpretive labels, changing descriptions, revision lineage, and sustainability/end-of-life needs. Although the strongest equal-visibility and user-confusion formulation is unquantified, enough of the problem is externally grounded for a bounded audit.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC4","SRC8"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Museums, edition boards, archives, and repository stewards have identifiable control over interpretive content and discovery, with source-community representatives or cultural-protocol stewards identifiable where affected rights and knowledge are involved.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC5","SRC7","SRC8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Adjacent systems provide provenance, version transparency, presentation, access control, and project lifecycle planning, but the retained sources do not establish the integrated claim that trigger-based, exception-governed, reversible discovery demotion improves mistaken-current judgments without suppressing legitimate plurality.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A frozen finite collection can be exhaustively inventoried, assigned proposed states, and tested through an offline shadow index and blinded retrieval tasks; no primary source deletion, public relabeling, or irreversible ranking change is required.","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC6","SRC8"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The authorized first step is reversible and non-public, and known hazards can be controlled by board approval, source-community participation, impact assessment, preservation exceptions, dependency checks, citation tests, and immediate restoration of the prior index. Rights or cultural-protocol conflicts halt individual-layer processing rather than preventing the shadow pilot as a whole.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC4","SRC7","SRC8"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially using direct phrases, older disciplinary terminology, standards/products, multilingual regional terms, and component combinations. Eight retained direct sources span six independent publishers and include multiple official standards, official guidance, and first-party projects.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":true,"screen_survival":true,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Preregister a no-public-change pilot in one frozen collection: enumerate every interpretive overlay and dependency; have a multidisciplinary board define triggers, exceptions, disparity and citation tolerances; create an offline shadow index with lifecycle labels and reversible demotion; then run blinded counterbalanced tasks measuring mistaken-current selection, interpretation time, missed relevant accounts, citation resolution, and demotion disparities. Stop and restore baseline indexing if any preset safety threshold is crossed.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web review found adjacent but not identical practices; it does not establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact. Unindexed local workflows, commercial repository features, scholarship outside the searched languages, and inaccessible literature may contain closer prior art."}