The Gold Standard · Archaeology
Make the decision path visible
Retirement often leaves an archive containing model versions, disputed joins, reviewer decisions and appeal evidence. That archive is valuable. It can also become a convenient substitute for the retired system when researchers copy scores into new catalogues, export a frozen dataset without its warnings or reconnect a notebook to current records.
The gold standard governs the archive as evidence, not as dormant authority. It defines who may ask which questions, preserves provenance and uncertainty and makes every export unable to steer current archaeological decisions without a new review.
Choose the route closest to your decision
Chapter contents
Chapters 1–3
Chapters 4–6
Chapters 7–9
Chapters 10–12
CHAPTER 1 OF 12 · DEFINE EVIDENCE-ONLY USE
1. Define the archive’s evidential purpose
List the scientific, governance and historical questions the archive may support. State that stored model outputs cannot authorise current joins or release.
Purpose should be visible before access is granted, not inferred from the user’s job title.
CHAPTER 2 OF 12 · DEFINE EVIDENCE-ONLY USE
2. Separate archive roles
Distinguish custodians, archaeological researchers, governance reviewers and current catalogue approvers. Give each only the data and actions needed for the approved purpose.
One broad research role can recreate the same authority paths retirement was meant to close.
Evidence check
Check whether the scope, owner and decision consequence are explicit before continuing.
CHAPTER 3 OF 12 · DEFINE EVIDENCE-ONLY USE
3. Preserve warnings with the evidence
Keep model version, population definition, exclusions, known defects, reviewer influence findings and appeal decisions attached to every output.
A score without its context looks more authoritative than the evidence permits.
| Role | Permitted action |
|---|---|
| Custodian | Preserve and grant |
| Researcher | Analyse approved extract |
| Reviewer | Inspect decision history |
| Current approver | Use independent evidence |
CHAPTER 4 OF 12 · DETECT ACCESS DRIFT
4. Recognise archive access drift
Look for wider membership, live data connections, recurring exports, copied annotations, automated notebooks and references in current decision records.
Drift appears when evidence becomes operational convenience.
CHAPTER 5 OF 12 · DETECT ACCESS DRIFT
5. Trace reuse into current archaeology
Search catalogue change logs, join proposals, publications, teaching datasets and partner exports for archived identifiers or scores. Record the path and affected decisions.
The archive may influence work even when no technical connection remains.
Evidence check
Ask a second reviewer to reconstruct the example from the preserved evidence and stated assumptions.
CHAPTER 6 OF 12 · DETECT ACCESS DRIFT
6. Worked example: archived scores enter a new catalogue
A researcher exports retired bridge-model scores to compare formation processes. The CSV loses its retirement warning, and a later project imports the high-confidence column into a new catalogue as a join recommendation.
The repository freezes affected joins, restores provenance labels and reviews each current use independently. Changed-context check: if the export contains only anonymised aggregate error counts and no case-level decision field, it may support methods research with lower reuse risk, but its purpose and limits should still travel with it.
| Signal | Risk |
|---|---|
| Live data feed | Current influence |
| Case-score export | Operational reuse |
| Broad membership | Purpose loss |
| Copied annotation | Hidden authority |
CHAPTER 7 OF 12 · REPAIR ARCHIVE GOVERNANCE
7. Re-establish environmental separation
Remove current catalogue credentials, live feeds and write-capable tools from the archive environment. Use controlled extracts and non-current identities.
Read-only storage is not evidence-only governance if connected notebooks can write elsewhere.
CHAPTER 8 OF 12 · REPAIR ARCHIVE GOVERNANCE
8. Make exports self-describing
Include provenance, retirement status, permitted purpose, expiry, known limitations and a persistent archive reference. Log recipients and derived datasets.
Context should survive normal copying and not depend on a separate email.
Evidence check
Verify that the control still reaches the intended decision under a changed but plausible context.
CHAPTER 9 OF 12 · REPAIR ARCHIVE GOVERNANCE
9. Create a route for legitimate new hypotheses
Allow researchers to propose a fresh study using archived evidence, with current data and authority kept separate until review.
Retirement should not block scholarship; it should stop unreviewed operational reuse.
| Field | Why |
|---|---|
| Retirement status | Prevents misreading |
| Model version | Supports lineage |
| Known limits | Bounds inference |
| Permitted purpose | Guides reuse |
CHAPTER 10 OF 12 · KEEP SCHOLARSHIP USABLE
10. Review affected claims and joins
Prioritise case-level imports, released catalogues and published interpretations. Preserve sound archaeological evidence while correcting claims that relied on unauthorised authority.
Governance repair and scientific interpretation require related but distinct judgements.
CHAPTER 11 OF 12 · KEEP SCHOLARSHIP USABLE
11. State limits and misconceptions
Watermarks and access logs cannot prevent every screenshot or copied value. Archive retirement also does not mean the underlying archaeological observations are worthless.
Record residual reuse risk, lawful access duties and when stronger aggregation is needed.
Evidence check
Confirm that versions, notices and unresolved limits remain visible in the final record.
CHAPTER 12 OF 12 · KEEP SCHOLARSHIP USABLE
12. Audit evidence-only governance
Review membership, exports, derived datasets, live connections and citations. Test that current systems reject archived identities and that researchers have a usable approved route.
The gold standard keeps the retirement archive alive as accountable evidence while preventing it from becoming a quiet replacement for the redesign.
| Use | Response |
|---|---|
| Aggregate methods study | Document |
| Case-level hypothesis | Fresh review |
| Catalogue recommendation | Freeze and assess |
| Released interpretation | Correct if material |
Frequently asked questions
Why preserve a retired redesign archive?
It contains evidence about decisions, errors and archaeological context that may remain valuable for accountability and scholarship.
Can researchers export case-level data?
Only through a controlled purpose with provenance and safeguards appropriate to the risk of operational reuse.
Does read-only access prevent authority drift?
No. Users can still copy scores or annotations into current workflows unless purpose and outputs are governed.
How can archive evidence support a new design?
Through a fresh study proposal and review that keeps historical evidence separate from current authority until approved.
Continue through verified routes
Core routes
Archaeology subject root · Gold Standard of Education · Gold Standard directory · How X Works hub
Specialist routes
- Re-revocation appeal, shadow-evidence preservation and redesign retirement
- Redesign re-entry shadow validation drift, appeal-condition breaches and re-revocation
- Conditional approval revocation appeal, residual release holds and redesign re-entry criteria
- Control redesign validation disputes, competing success criteria and governance acceptance