Evidence does not stay current forever.
An audit can become outdated when code changes. A disclosure can become stale when supply assumptions change. A governance record can be superseded by a new approval. A treasury mandate can require review after a major disbursement. A reporting artifact can lose relevance when the cadence slips.
That is why the Launch Operating System needs evidence freshness and staleness rules.
Why freshness matters
Stakeholders need to know whether proof still supports the claim it is being used to make.
A venture may have submitted evidence months ago, but if the underlying condition has changed, the old artifact may no longer be enough. Freshness rules prevent outdated evidence from continuing to support current readiness, monitoring, or disclosure status without review.
Freshness keeps evidence honest.
Current evidence
Current evidence is still valid for the condition it supports.
It has not been superseded by newer information, invalidated by a lifecycle change, or aged beyond the defined review window. Current evidence can support gates, signals, summaries, and stakeholder review.
The system should make current status explicit.
Stale evidence
Stale evidence may have been valid once but now requires recheck.
Staleness can be time-based, event-based, or policy-based. A security artifact may become stale after a code upgrade. A disclosure may become stale after a treasury action. A jurisdictional assessment may become stale after market expansion.
Stale evidence needs review before renewed reliance; that review determines whether the underlying record remains valid.
Superseded evidence
Superseded evidence has been replaced by a newer version or record.
The old evidence should not disappear because it may explain earlier decisions. But it should not be mistaken for the current source of truth. The Evidence Graph should preserve lineage while clearly identifying the effective version.
Version history protects accountability without confusing current state.
Review-required evidence
Some evidence enters a review-required state.
This may happen when an artifact conflicts with another record, when an event changes the underlying facts, when a policy update affects the standard, or when AI flags a potential inconsistency. Review-required status tells stakeholders that evidence exists, but interpretation is not final.
That prevents premature reliance.
What stakeholders should look for
- Does the platform label evidence freshness?
- Are stale records distinguished from current ones?
- Can superseded records still be inspected historically?
- Do lifecycle events trigger rechecks?
- Are AI outputs aware of evidence status?
Evidence freshness is part of trust.
Current evidence supports current claims.
Stale evidence triggers review.
Superseded evidence preserves history.
Review-required evidence prevents premature certainty.
That is how proof stays reliable over time.
This is how we Become Alpha.