{"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__economics_finance","archetype_slug":"negative_space_design","domain_slug":"economics_finance","title":"Protected-Attention Retail Brokerage Order Review","opportunity_summary":"Test whether temporarily and recoverably removing noncritical visual competitors from a brokerage order-review screen improves comprehension of commitment, cost, execution, and exposure terms versus a dense baseline and a salience-only redesign, without impairing disclosure, accessibility, restoration, or timely investor action.","adopter_authorizer":"A retail brokerage product owner is the identifiable adopter, with compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations approval required for a prototype or subsequent deployment; the investor retains authority to submit, edit, or cancel each order.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"The proposal targets unintended orders and misestimated cash or leverage exposure at the final commitment point, outcomes that can matter materially to investors and brokers. The prevalence and achievable reduction in such errors are unsupported, preventing the highest score."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Investors and brokerage compliance, risk, support, and operations functions have proposal-specific reasons to value fewer execution and exposure errors. The packet provides no evidence of expressed investor demand, broker adoption interest, complaint frequency, or budget ownership."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Protected, recoverable absence makes a clear incremental claim over both the dense baseline and a salience-only rival: reducing competition rather than merely increasing emphasis. Whether that mechanism produces a meaningful advantage after accounting for terminology and product knowledge is untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate distinguishes its causal mechanism from ordinary visual salience treatments and specifies a comparative test. Its prior-art status is explicitly UNSEARCHED, so distinctiveness relative to existing brokerage review or focus-mode patterns remains uncertain."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A non-live prototype with temporary omission, protected spacing, restoration, and simulated market and limit orders appears technically bounded. Production implementation would still need to preserve changing prices, all material disclosures, accessible navigation, and immediate edit, cancel, help, and restoration paths."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The packet identifies a brokerage product owner and the required compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations approvals while preserving investor decision authority. Feasibility is mixed because several functions must approve a high-stakes financial interface and no actual authorization or organizational pull is documented."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":5,"rationale":"The candidate supplies a safe non-live setting, relevant comparison conditions, concrete comprehension and exposure outcomes, adverse-effect measures, problem and intervention falsifiers, and explicit halt and rollback criteria. This is unusually ready for a bounded first evidence study despite having no results yet."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"Potential benefits explicitly include novices, overloaded users, and users of assistive technology, while edit, cancel, help, restoration, required disclosures, and halt criteria are protected. Benefit remains hypothetical, and suppression could instead create accessibility failures, mistrust, delay, or missed context."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The bounded review-state pattern could plausibly be reused across order types and brokerage interfaces. Scaling is uncertain because material context, time sensitivity, accessibility behavior, product complexity, and approval requirements may vary across instruments, platforms, and broker workflows."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"One non-live comparative usability study covering prototype preparation, participant recruitment, simulated market and limit orders, accessibility participation, compliance and risk review, instrumentation, analysis, and test documentation.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The broker can provide or reproduce representative review screens without production integration.","The study includes baseline, protected-absence, and salience-only conditions.","Costs include specialized accessibility testing and cross-functional review but no real-money trading."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production design and engineering for one brokerage platform or bounded order flow, including dynamic-data handling, disclosure mapping, accessible restoration, telemetry, security and quality assurance, compliance review, and rollback capability.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment is limited to one broker and a bounded set of order types.","Existing order-entry, market-data, identity, and audit infrastructure can be reused.","No major core trading-platform replacement or new regulatory authorization is required."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"A controlled operational launch for a bounded customer and order-flow segment, including staged release controls, monitoring, support preparation, incident handling, accessibility validation, outcome evaluation, and rollback readiness.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Non-live evidence first meets preset benefit and harm tolerances.","The launch remains reversible and does not initially cover all instruments or customers.","Broker compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations functions participate throughout launch."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Ongoing maintenance, disclosure and interface updates, accessibility regression testing, outcome and complaint monitoring, model-free analytics, compliance review, support, and periodic reassessment across supported order flows.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The intervention is a maintained interface state rather than a separate trading system.","Recurring work covers a bounded initial implementation rather than enterprise-wide international deployment.","Material product or regulatory changes may require additional project funding outside this band."]}},"research_burden":"HIGH","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate defines a specific observable condition—noncritical dynamic content competing with critical order terms—and corresponding measurable comprehension and simulated-order errors, while distinguishing it from general financial-information deficiency."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"A brokerage product owner is identified as the prototype authorizer, subject to named compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations approvals; investor order authority is also explicitly preserved."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that recoverable removal of visual competitors improves critical-term comprehension and exposure accuracy beyond both a dense baseline and a salience-only redesign, with explicit benefit and harm falsifiers."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet authorizes a non-live, counterbalanced simulated-order usability test with specified measures, comparison conditions, halt triggers, and no use of real funds."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the first non-live step, the candidate preserves required disclosures, edit, cancel, help, restoration, accessibility, and investor authority, and specifies immediate halt and baseline restoration for defined failures. These protections do not establish that production deployment is safe."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate describes prototype and approval activities but provides no organization-specific engineering scope, participant plan, integration inventory, rollout scale, or resource range. The broad evaluator bands therefore depend on stated assumptions rather than affirmative sealed evidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["Baseline evidence that users actually overlook or misinterpret critical terms and that visual competition predicts those errors after controlling for terminology, product knowledge, stale data, and product complexity.","Comparative evidence that protected absence improves comprehension or exposure estimation versus both the dense baseline and the salience-only rival by a preset meaningful margin.","Evidence that the intervention stays within preset tolerances for abandonment, delay, mistrust, missed context, restoration failure, and accessibility failure.","Confirmation that complete, timely disclosure and immediate edit, cancel, help, and restoration remain available under changing-price and time-sensitive conditions.","Broker-specific compliance, risk, accessibility, operations, integration, and cost validation before any live deployment.","Prior-art evidence before treating the mechanism or implementation as distinctive."],"next_evidence_step":"Run one preregistered, non-live, counterbalanced usability study comparing the dense baseline, the salience-only rival, and the protected-absence review state using simulated market and limit orders. Measure critical-term comprehension, exposure estimation, order errors, completion time, abandonment, restoration success, mistrust or missing-data interpretations, and accessibility outcomes; control or stratify for terminology and product knowledge. Falsify advancement if protected absence does not outperform both comparisons on critical outcomes or exceeds preset harm tolerances, and halt immediately if any required disclosure or restoration path becomes inaccessible.","research_questions":["Do baseline users overlook critical order terms, and does measured visual competition explain errors after accounting for terminology and product knowledge?","Does protected absence outperform both the dense baseline and salience-only emphasis on comprehension, exposure estimation, and simulated-order accuracy?","Which surrounding elements can be temporarily suppressed without hiding material dependencies or creating stale-price misunderstandings?","Can screen-reader, low-vision, keyboard-only, novice, and cognitively overloaded users access and restore all content and controls reliably?","What benefit and harm tolerances would compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations functions require before authorizing a reversible production test?","Do effects persist across market orders, limit orders, leverage states, changing prices, and time-sensitive decisions without increasing unjustified confidence?","What existing brokerage review or focus-mode patterns are relevant to distinctiveness and implementation design?","What broker-specific engineering, monitoring, support, and recurring-maintenance resources would implementation require?"],"recommendation":"PILOT_NOW","uncertainty_constraints":["The existence, prevalence, and severity of crowding-caused retail order errors are not established by the sealed candidate.","The proposed comprehension and exposure benefits are hypotheses with no reported empirical effect size or durability.","Stakeholder demand, broker willingness to adopt, and approval feasibility have not been externally demonstrated.","Novelty and prior art are unmeasured because the candidate is explicitly UNSEARCHED.","Market size, realized impact, and exact implementation or recurring costs cannot be inferred closed-book.","Production safety remains contingent on timely disclosures, changing-price behavior, accessibility, restoration reliability, and broker-specific governance.","The 0-to-3-month horizon applies only to obtaining initial non-live comparative evidence, not to production deployment or realized financial outcomes."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The sealed packet supports only a structurally differentiated, testable hypothesis. It contains no prior-art search and cannot support claims about novelty, prevalence, existing brokerage practices, market size, realized impact, or exact cost; all such matters require external research."}