{"schema_version":1,"assessment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_opportunity320_20260801","source_experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"negative_space_design__archaeology_paleontology","archetype_slug":"negative_space_design","domain_slug":"archaeology_paleontology","title":"Reversible Archaeological GIS Focus Views with Semantic Void Cues","opportunity_summary":"Test a reversible, question-specific GIS view that suppresses non-focal display layers, protects spacing around focal relations, explains apparent empty regions, and provides immediate restoration of the full context. The claimed benefit is more accurate relation detection and blank-state interpretation without altering archival evidence, provenance, or interpretive authority.","adopter_authorizer":"A project GIS or publication lead can authorize a reversible evaluation, subject to the accountable archaeological project and relevant data stewards retaining authority over interpretation and disclosure.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal targets errors in spatial and stratigraphic interpretation, provenance review, and the evidential meaning of blank regions. These consequences could materially affect published interpretation, although their prevalence and frequency are unsupported."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Analysts, excavation teams, reviewers, and downstream researchers are identifiable beneficiaries, but the packet provides no interviews, requests, adoption behavior, baseline complaint data, or willingness to change workflows."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Protected spacing, semantic void cues, and guaranteed context restoration plausibly add value beyond ordinary layer toggles or phase small multiples. The advantage remains untested and could be offset by loss of co-occurrence context or selective suppression."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is specifically described, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and the packet supplies no basis for distinguishing it from existing GIS decluttering, uncertainty visualization, focus views, or archaeological cartographic practice."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Duplicate views, reversible layer suppression, labels, protected spacing, and full-view restoration appear compatible with ordinary digital mapping operations. Production implementation may still require tool-specific integration, accessibility work, and reliable preservation of provenance and uncertainty."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":5,"rationale":"The packet identifies a project GIS or publication lead as test authorizer, preserves archaeological and disclosure authority with accountable parties, limits the test to completed non-sensitive data, and specifies rollback conditions."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"A bounded comparison with an unchanged baseline, at most 12 qualified readers, defined outcome types, and intervention falsifiers is already specified. Readiness is reduced because meaningful-effect and unacceptable-context-error thresholds have not yet been preregistered."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Semantic void cues directly address false absence interpretations, while the unchanged archive, baseline view, immediate restoration, excluded actions, and halt rule provide substantial safeguards. These controls are not yet shown to be noticed or effective in use."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The mechanism could be reused across archaeological mapping tasks, but each view may require question-specific layer selection, semantic classification of gaps, steward review, and accessibility validation. Cross-project portability is therefore uncertain."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Prepare one duplicate focus view from a completed non-sensitive dataset, preregister decision thresholds, recruit and coordinate no more than 12 qualified readers, run the blinded comparison against the unchanged baseline, and analyze relation accuracy, blank-state interpretation, time, confidence, and contextual errors.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["No new excavation or primary data collection is required.","The completed dataset and an operational GIS environment are already available.","Qualified readers can be recruited without extensive travel or institutional contracting.","The evaluation includes design, coordination, analysis, and documentation labor."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Convert a successful experimental design into a reliable project workflow or software-supported feature with provenance preservation, semantic state conventions, restoration controls, accessibility review, documentation, and acceptance testing.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment uses an existing GIS platform rather than creating a new mapping system.","Integration requirements and licensing are unspecified.","No restricted or culturally sensitive data are exposed during development.","The range includes engineering, archaeological review, accessibility work, and governance setup."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Launch the validated workflow within an initial organization or archaeological program, including configuration for selected datasets, staff training, data-steward review, quality assurance, support procedures, and post-launch evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch covers a bounded program rather than a sector-wide rollout.","Existing archival and baseline views remain authoritative and available.","Some project-specific configuration and review are required.","No field equipment replacement or major data migration is needed."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Maintain templates or software integration, update semantic conventions and documentation, train users, review accessibility and provenance controls, support projects, and periodically audit blank-state and omitted-context errors.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The workflow remains within an existing GIS and archival environment.","Usage is limited to one organization or a modest portfolio of projects.","Recurring costs exclude new excavation, major platform replacement, and broad external licensing.","Human review remains necessary for question-specific suppression and gap semantics."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate identifies observable overlap, equal-salience competition, reader disagreement about phase membership, and ambiguity among no evidence, unexcavated ground, missing data, and hidden layers. Actual prevalence still requires external validation."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The project GIS or publication lead is explicitly identified as able to authorize a reversible test, with interpretation and disclosure authority retained by the project and data stewards."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that protected spacing, semantic void cues, and immediate context restoration improve relation and blank-state accuracy beyond an unchanged crowded view; the packet supplies measurable outcomes and a no-improvement falsifier."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The authorized step uses one completed non-sensitive dataset, a duplicate focus view, an unchanged baseline, no more than 12 qualified readers, blinded tasks, specified outcomes, and explicit halt conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The test is reversible, preserves the archive and baseline, excludes sensitive disclosure and evidence alteration, retains accountable authority, and stops for provenance loss, increased blank-state errors, or reduced relation accuracy."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate defines a sufficiently bounded experiment and a conventional GIS-centered intervention to support broad resource bands, although platform, integration, and organizational details prevent precise estimates."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether representative qualified readers actually exhibit the diagnosed baseline relation and blank-state errors on suitable completed datasets.","Whether the focus view exceeds preregistered meaningful-improvement thresholds without increasing omitted-context, provenance, or blank-state errors.","Whether restoration controls, semantic cues, uncertainty information, and accessibility features are reliably noticed and correctly used.","Whether analysts, reviewers, project leads, and data stewards consider the problem important enough to adopt and govern an additional view workflow.","Whether the proposed composition is materially distinct from existing archaeological GIS, cartographic decluttering, uncertainty visualization, and provenance-aware focus-view practices.","Whether the configuration and review burden remains acceptable across different projects, datasets, and archaeological questions."],"next_evidence_step":"Before exposure, preregister meaningful improvement and unacceptable contextual-error thresholds; then use one completed non-sensitive dataset to compare the duplicate focus view with the unchanged all-purpose baseline in blinded tasks involving at most 12 qualified readers. Measure relation accuracy, blank-state interpretation, response time, confidence, and omitted-context errors. Falsify advancement if there is no preregistered improvement in relation accuracy or blank-state interpretation, or if any meaningful increase in contextual or provenance error occurs.","research_questions":["Do representative readers already identify focal relations and every blank-region state accurately in the unchanged baseline?","Does the focus view improve relation accuracy or blank-state interpretation beyond the preregistered threshold?","Does suppression increase missed co-occurrence, omitted-context, selective-interpretation, or provenance errors?","Are semantic void cues, uncertainty indicators, and full-context restoration discoverable and effective for both experts and less-experienced readers?","How does the composition compare with the stated nearest rival of question-specific toggles or phase-by-phase small multiples?","Which elements are established practice, recombinations, or potentially distinctive in relevant prior art?","What configuration, review, training, and accessibility burden would projects accept for recurring use?","Do accountable project leads and data stewards report sufficient demand to authorize broader evaluation or adoption?"],"recommendation":"PILOT_NOW","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no external evidence of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, prior art, realized benefit, or adoption outcomes.","The intervention is a hypothesis and has no supplied target-domain evaluation results.","The nearest-rival comparison is conceptual; comparative performance is unknown.","Meaningful-effect and unacceptable-context-error thresholds are not supplied and must be preregistered.","GIS platform, integration complexity, licensing, participant availability, accessibility requirements, and organizational scale are unspecified, so all cost bands are resource-equivalent ranges with limited confidence.","The recommendation supports only the bounded, reversible evidence pilot and does not imply live operational deployment or publication use."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED. This assessment makes no claim that protected spacing, semantic void cues, reversible suppression, or their composition is novel, rare, or absent from archaeological GIS, cartography, uncertainty visualization, or provenance-aware interface practice."}