{"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 Silence for AI Code Suggestions","opportunity_summary":"Temporarily suspend automatic AI suggestion presentation during predefined high-focus editor states while preserving code diagnostics and explicit assistant invocation. The proposal could reduce involuntary attention shifts and rework, but the existence, prevalence, and magnitude of timing-related interruption and the intervention's advantage remain unverified hypotheses.","adopter_authorizer":"Individual developers authorize local participation; the repository owner or engineering lead authorizes use on project work.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"If suggestion timing causes attention shifts, premature acceptance, or rework, bounded silence could improve developer control and software-change quality. The packet supplies no evidence about prevalence, effect magnitude, or downstream defect reduction."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Developers, maintainers, and repository owners are identifiable affected parties, but the sealed candidate contains no expressed demand, adoption request, purchasing signal, or evidence that timing is a priority problem."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"The timing-based suppression lever differs testably from confidence filtering and global enable-or-disable controls because it withholds even plausible suggestions during designated states. Whether this improves outcomes or merely delays useful completions is unresolved."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The composition is specific enough to compare against confidence thresholds, but adaptive cooldowns, focus-sensitive suppression, and equivalent editor behavior may already exist; prior art is explicitly unsearched."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A local event-driven state machine, bounded timer, manual invocation path, and experiment flag appear implementable within an AI-enabled editor. Reproducible detector thresholds, accessibility handling, and reliable identification of receptive versus high-focus moments remain unresolved."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet identifies developer consent and repository-owner or engineering-lead authorization, limits work to non-production tasks initially, and provides immediate rollback. Project policies, telemetry permissions, and accommodations could add approvals."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate specifies a crossover comparison, observable outcomes, problem and intervention falsifiers, exclusions, and halt criteria. Detector rules, interval policies, subgroup handling, and quantitative decision bounds still require preregistration."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Manual assistant invocation, continued visibility of compiler and safety diagnostics, bounded intervals, local opt-out, halt thresholds, and a reversible experiment flag substantially limit exposure. Delayed useful completions and detector misclassification remain possible."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The core state machine could be reproduced across participating editor installations, but task variation, editor integration differences, novice and accessibility needs, privacy-sensitive telemetry, and detector calibration may limit uniform scaling."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Time-bounded prior-art and product-feature research comparing the proposed event-triggered bounded silence with confidence filtering, cooldowns, focus modes, and equivalent suppression mechanisms, followed by an engineering review of any claimed difference.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Skilled research and engineering-review labor are included.","The review covers a bounded set of major editor and coding-assistant products plus relevant technical and patent literature.","No prototype construction, participant study, or licensed proprietary dataset is included."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Build and validate a local experimental editor integration with fixed rejection and rapid-edit triggers, bounded quiet intervals, explicit invocation, experiment controls, privacy-preserving measurements, and rollback.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Work targets one existing editor and assistant integration.","Existing authorization and code-processing infrastructure are reused.","The scope includes engineering, security and privacy review, test-task preparation, and pilot evaluation but excludes production-wide release."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Productize the policy for controlled project use, including configurable detectors, accessibility and subgroup testing, telemetry governance, documentation, support, quality assurance, and staged rollout evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch spans more than one team or editor environment.","Critical diagnostics remain outside the suppression mechanism.","Repository policy integration, compliance review, partner coordination, and rollback monitoring are included.","No organization-wide mandatory default is assumed."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain editor integrations, recalibrate detector policies, monitor harms and missed cues, perform privacy and security reviews, support users, and evaluate regressions as assistant behavior changes.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment remains bounded rather than universal.","Existing operational and incident-response systems can be reused.","Recurring controlled evaluations are required because suggestion models and editor event behavior may change."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet defines observable suggestion presentation, dismissal, task switching, undo, completion-time, quality, and reported-control measures, along with a problem falsifier. External evidence is still needed to establish prevalence and magnitude."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Participating developers are the local adopters, while repository owners or engineering leads are explicitly identified as authorizers for project work."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that state-triggered bounded silence improves control, interruption, rework, or quality relative to continuous suggestion eligibility, specifically beyond stricter relevance-confidence filtering."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A time-bounded prior-art and product-feature comparison can determine whether an equivalent mechanism exists before any deployment, using the absence of a falsifiable difference from an implemented equivalent as a stop condition."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate preserves critical warnings, requires opt-in and project authorization, excludes personnel evaluation and unauthorized code upload, and provides immediate halt and rollback. Identified risks require controls but do not constitute an unresolved stop for desk research or a preregistered non-production pilot."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The mechanism has a bounded technical scope, but the sealed candidate provides no staffing, integration, compliance, telemetry, support, or maintenance evidence from which implementation cost ranges can be verified."}},"blocking_evidence":["No external evidence establishes how often suggestion timing or density causes interruption, rework, automation bias, quality loss, or reduced control.","No prior-art or product research establishes whether equivalent adaptive cooldown or focus-sensitive suppression mechanisms already exist.","No reproducible thresholds or interval policies establish that the proposed high-focus detector can distinguish unreceptive from receptive moments.","No comparative outcome evidence shows bounded silence improves a preregistered measure without unacceptable losses in task time, useful completions, quality, or critical-cue detection.","No implementation evidence verifies integration effort, privacy requirements, accessibility effects, or recurring maintenance burden."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a time-bounded prior-art and product-feature review comparing event-triggered bounded silence against continuous eligibility with confidence thresholds and against any existing cooldown or focus-sensitive suppression feature. Stop or redefine the opportunity if an implemented equivalent uses the same triggers, recoverability, and bounded exit conditions and the proposal has no falsifiable incremental difference; otherwise preregister that difference and the subsequent non-production crossover test.","research_questions":["Do suggestion timing and density predict dismissals, task switching, undo, errors, completion time, or reported loss of control after accounting for task difficulty?","Do current editors or coding assistants already implement rejection cooldowns, rapid-edit suppression, focus-sensitive silence, or a causally equivalent mechanism?","Which observable event thresholds and interval policies identify high-focus states without repeatedly suppressing suggestions during receptive moments?","Compared with continuous eligibility and stricter confidence filtering, does bounded silence improve any preregistered control, interruption, rework, or quality measure without a compensating time or quality loss?","How do effects and misclassification risks differ for novices, experienced developers, and accessibility-tool users?","Can evaluation telemetry be minimized sufficiently to avoid exposing sensitive code or work-pattern data?","What engineering, governance, support, and maintenance resources are required for one-editor and multi-team deployment?"] ,"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["All claimed causal and outcome effects are hypotheses rather than established findings.","Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, and realized impact are unmeasured.","World novelty and deployment history cannot be inferred from the sealed candidate.","The nearest implemented equivalent and any incremental difference are unknown.","Detector accuracy, beneficial interval duration, subgroup effects, and accessibility consequences are unknown.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on stated scope assumptions, not verified estimates."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art was unsearched and remains unverified in this closed-book assessment; no conclusion is made about novelty, prevalence, existing equivalent features, deployment history, or competitive differentiation."}