{"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__computer_science","archetype_slug":"negative_space_design","domain_slug":"computer_science","title":"Context-sensitive quiet intervals for AI coding suggestions","opportunity_summary":"Temporarily suspend automatic AI suggestion presentation during predefined high-focus states, while retaining code diagnostics and explicit assistant invocation. The proposal is testable and reversible, but the existence and magnitude of timing-specific interruption, stakeholder demand, detector validity, and external distinctiveness are unestablished.","adopter_authorizer":"The participating developer authorizes local use; the repository owner or engineering lead authorizes use on project work. Broader deployment may additionally require editor-platform, security, privacy, accessibility, or organizational approval not established in the packet.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Reduced interruption, rework, and automation bias could improve software-change quality and developer control, but all outcome effects and their prevalence are explicitly hypotheses, and delayed useful completions could offset benefits."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The packet identifies developers who dismiss, inspect, accept, or undo suggestions, but provides no developer requests, adoption commitments, measured dissatisfaction, or evidence that timing is a priority relative to relevance and availability."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Bounded silence targets presentation timing that a relevance-confidence threshold does not directly address, while preserving manual invocation; however, no evidence shows that this produces a net improvement over continuous eligibility, stricter thresholds, or global controls."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The timing lever is coherently differentiated within the packet, but prior-art status is explicitly unsearched and the packet cannot establish whether adaptive cooldowns, focus-sensitive suppression, or equivalent features already exist."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A local event-driven state machine, experiment flag, bounded timer, manual override, and preserved diagnostics appear technically tractable. The principal uncertainty is reliable calibration across tasks, novices, and accessibility-tool users rather than basic construction."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Local developer consent and repository-owner or engineering-lead authorization are explicitly identified, with non-production scope and immediate rollback. Production or organization-wide use could require additional privacy, security, accessibility, and platform authority."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet specifies observable events, within-person comparisons, problem and intervention falsifiers, exclusions, and halt criteria. Readiness is limited by the absence of reproducible detector thresholds, interval policies, subgroup rules, and preregistered quantitative bounds."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Suggestions remain explicitly summonable, compiler and critical warnings remain visible, participation is opt-in, and the experiment flag enables immediate restoration. Residual risks include missed useful completions, misleading silence, sensitive telemetry, and detector misclassification."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A client-side policy could be replicated across users without expensive physical infrastructure, but software-task heterogeneity, editor integrations, telemetry governance, accessibility needs, and subgroup-specific calibration make broad transfer uncertain."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded, local-only within-person observational study on non-production tasks, instrumenting suggestion timing and density and comparing predefined high-focus periods with matched lower-focus periods before testing suppression.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["A small opt-in developer sample is available without paid enterprise procurement.","Existing editor events can be logged locally with limited engineering.","Analysis includes task difficulty, dismissals, undo, task switching, completion time, errors, and reported control.","No private source code leaves the already authorized environment."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Build and validate a deployable integration for one editor and one organizational environment, including explicit invocation, detector configuration, experiment controls, local telemetry safeguards, accessibility review, and rollback.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The editor exposes the required suggestion and editing events.","No foundational model retraining is required.","Deployment uses existing assistant infrastructure.","Security, privacy, and accessibility reviews are limited to one environment."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Launch an opt-in production evaluation for a bounded set of teams, including partner coordination, support, preregistration, monitoring, reviewer analysis, incident handling, and evaluation against baseline.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Initial evidence supports proceeding beyond non-production tasks.","Repository owners and organizational reviewers approve the study.","The launch remains opt-in and feature-flagged rather than becoming an organization-wide default.","Critical diagnostics remain outside the suppression mechanism."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain one supported editor integration and policy service, including compatibility updates, monitoring, privacy and accessibility review, user support, calibration studies, and periodic outcome audits.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The feature relies primarily on local event processing.","Only a limited number of editor and policy variants are supported.","No new model-serving capacity is attributable solely to the feature.","Telemetry retention and review remain narrowly scoped."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet makes the behavior observable through presentation, dismissal, undo, switching, and reported control, but timing-specific harm, prevalence, and magnitude are explicitly unvalidated hypotheses requiring external evidence."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Participating developers, repository owners, and engineering leads are specifically identified, with separate authority for local participation and project-work use."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal tests bounded suppression after specified events against continuous automatic eligibility, with manual invocation preserved and explicit outcome and harm measures."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A local, opt-in, non-production within-person comparison can test whether timing and density predict interruption-related outcomes, with a stated falsifier and no need for live deployment."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the first evidence step, critical diagnostics remain visible, private-code handling cannot exceed existing authorization, personnel evaluation is excluded, participation is local and opt-in, and immediate rollback is specified."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed mechanism has a bounded implementation scope—editor events, a detector, timers, explicit invocation, telemetry controls, and a feature flag—supporting broad resource bands, although calibration and organizational review keep confidence limited."}},"blocking_evidence":["Within-person evidence that suggestion timing or density predicts interruption, dismissal, undo, rework, error, completion time, or loss of control after accounting for task difficulty.","Evidence that bounded silence improves at least one preregistered control, interruption, rework, or quality outcome without an unacceptable completion-time, error, or missed-cue penalty.","Reproducible detector thresholds and interval policies that do not systematically disadvantage novices, accessibility-tool users, or task types needing timely completions.","External prior-art and product research establishing the nearest implemented equivalent and any falsifiable incremental difference.","Adoption inquiry showing that developers and relevant engineering authorities value timing-sensitive silence enough to accept configuration, telemetry, and integration costs."],"next_evidence_step":"Run a short opt-in, local-only within-person observational study on non-production tasks before suppressing any suggestions. Compare predefined rapid-edit, post-rejection, and unresolved-test-failure periods with task-difficulty-matched lower-focus periods on suggestion inspection, dismissal, task switching, undo, errors, completion time, and reported control. Falsify the problem claim if timing and density do not predict any preregistered interruption or control measure after adjustment for task difficulty.","research_questions":["Do suggestion timing and density independently predict interruption-related behavior after controlling for task difficulty and developer experience?","Which observable events and thresholds identify low-receptivity states without using sensitive code content?","What quiet-interval durations preserve useful completions while reducing involuntary evaluation?","How do effects differ for novices, experienced developers, accessibility-tool users, unfamiliar-code reading, debugging, and rapid implementation?","Does a timing policy outperform stricter relevance thresholds, manual-only suggestions, or a simple post-rejection cooldown?","Do developers and repository authorities perceive sufficient value to authorize continued evaluation and eventual deployment?","What adaptive cooldown, focus-sensitive suppression, or equivalent editor features constitute the nearest external prior art?","Can telemetry and evaluation avoid private-code exposure and personnel-performance use? "],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["No external evidence establishes problem prevalence, effect magnitude, stakeholder demand, market size, realized impact, or adoption history.","Prior-art status is unsearched, so external novelty and competitive differentiation cannot be scored affirmatively.","The detector and interval policy are examples rather than reproducible specifications.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges, not observed prices or point estimates.","Technical feasibility does not establish detector accuracy, net benefit, or cross-context scalability.","The earliest horizon assumes access to an editor integration and consenting participants; neither is confirmed."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet supports only an internally differentiated, testable timing mechanism. It supports no conclusion about whether adaptive cooldowns, focus-sensitive completion suppression, post-rejection quiet periods, or functionally equivalent editor features have already been researched, deployed, patented, or commercialized."}