{"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 order review","opportunity_summary":"Test a temporary, recoverable review state that removes unrelated visual competition and isolates decision-critical order terms while preserving required disclosures and immediate edit, cancel, help, and restoration paths. The claimed improvement in comprehension and exposure accuracy is a hypothesis; problem prevalence, effect magnitude, stakeholder demand, and distinctiveness are not established by the sealed candidate.","adopter_authorizer":"A retail brokerage product owner is the prospective adopter and prototype authorizer, subject to compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations approval. The investor retains sole authority to submit, edit, or cancel an order.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"Avoiding unintended orders and incorrect cash or leverage exposure would be materially valuable for affected investors and could reduce broker complaints and conduct risk. The score is limited because the sealed candidate supplies no prevalence or effect-magnitude evidence."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies investors and brokerage product, compliance, risk, support, and operations teams as affected stakeholders, but it contains no expressed demand, adoption inquiry, complaint volume, or willingness-to-implement evidence."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Protected, recoverable absence makes a clear incremental claim over both a dense baseline and a salience-only redesign. Whether it improves comprehension or exposure accuracy beyond those alternatives remains untested and it may instead increase delay, mistrust, or missed context."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposed causal role of temporary omission is structurally differentiated from merely changing headings, color, icons, or typography. Prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness relative to existing brokerage review or focus-mode patterns is unverified."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A simulated review-screen prototype with temporary content suppression, protected spacing, restoration controls, and logged outcomes is technically bounded. Production implementation would still require reliable dynamic-data handling, accessibility behavior, disclosure preservation, and stale-price safeguards."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate identifies a brokerage product owner and the required compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations approvals while preserving investor authority. Feasibility is mixed because no actual authorizer commitment or approval pathway has been demonstrated."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":5,"rationale":"The candidate specifies a non-live, counterbalanced test, baseline and salience-only comparisons, measurable outcomes, problem and intervention falsifiers, excluded actions, and explicit halt and rollback conditions."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"The design could particularly help novices, low-vision users, assistive-technology users, and cognitively overloaded users notice commitment and exposure terms. That benefit is uncertain because hidden or undiscoverable content and restoration failures could disadvantage the same groups."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The mechanism is expressible as a reusable review-state pattern, but the sealed candidate does not establish transfer across devices, order types, accessibility modes, broker architectures, disclosure regimes, or time-sensitive trading conditions."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Design and implement non-production baseline, salience-only, and protected-attention prototypes; run a counterbalanced simulated-order study; include accessibility evaluation, analysis, and compliance and risk review of test materials.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The study uses simulated funds and does not connect to live execution.","The test covers representative market and limit orders and a bounded set of user and accessibility needs.","Existing order-flow designs and required-disclosure language are available to the research team.","The band includes participant recruitment, research labor, prototype engineering, analysis, and partner coordination."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Convert a supported prototype into a production-ready implementation for one bounded brokerage order-review flow, including engineering, design-system work, accessibility remediation, compliance review, instrumentation, security and quality assurance, and rollback controls.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The intervention is limited to one brokerage and a bounded product family.","Core order-entry and disclosure systems already exist and do not require replacement.","No major regulatory redesign or market-venue change is required.","Actual architecture, platform count, and approval effort are absent from the sealed candidate."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Conduct a staged launch for the bounded order-review flow with release management, monitoring, support preparation, accessibility verification, incident response, controlled rollback, and post-launch comparative evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch follows favorable simulated evidence and all required internal approvals.","Rollout is staged rather than brokerage-wide at once.","Existing observability, customer-support, and experimentation infrastructure can be adapted.","The scope excludes expansion to every asset class, jurisdiction, and client platform."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain the review state, accessibility and disclosure compatibility, monitoring, periodic comprehension checks, incident review, and updates when order flows or required information change.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The implementation remains limited to a bounded set of order flows.","Existing brokerage engineering, compliance, accessibility, and monitoring teams absorb part of the work.","No persistent licensing or specialized equipment expense is required.","Material expansion across products or jurisdictions would increase the band."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"3_TO_12_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate defines a specific observable state—unrelated dynamic content competing with quantity, commitment, fees, execution conditions, leverage, and warnings—and supplies comprehension and simulated-order measures that could support or falsify it."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"A brokerage product owner can authorize a prototype subject to named compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations approvals; the investor's transaction authority is explicitly preserved."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The protected-attention condition can be compared separately with the dense baseline and a salience-only rival on comprehension, exposure accuracy, errors, time, abandonment, restoration, and accessibility."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The sealed candidate authorizes a non-live, counterbalanced simulated-order test, excludes real funds and broad deployment, and states concrete halt and rollback conditions."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the proposed first test, required disclosures and edit, cancel, help, and restoration paths must remain available; failures trigger immediate reversion to baseline. Production use still requires the named approvals, but that does not stop the bounded non-live study."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The intervention can be scoped to a bounded order-review flow and broad resource bands can be estimated, but the sealed candidate lacks platform count, architecture, integration complexity, participant requirements, jurisdictional scope, and actual approval effort needed to validate deployment costs."}},"blocking_evidence":["Whether attentional crowding materially predicts critical-term errors after controlling for terminology, financial literacy, product knowledge, product complexity, and stale data.","Whether protected absence improves comprehension and exposure estimation versus both the dense baseline and the salience-only rival by a preregistered decision threshold.","Whether the condition remains timely, trustworthy, and fully accessible without increasing abandonment, missed context, restoration failures, or stale-price misunderstandings beyond preset tolerances.","Whether an actual brokerage product owner and required compliance, risk, accessibility, and operations reviewers consider the problem important and the intervention approvable.","Whether implementation complexity and resource requirements fit the stated bands for a defined brokerage architecture and platform scope.","Whether materially similar brokerage review or focus-mode patterns already exist, because prior art remains unsearched and unverified."],"next_evidence_step":"With a brokerage or equivalent research partner, preregister and run a non-live, counterbalanced simulated-order study comparing the existing dense review screen, a salience-only redesign, and the protected-attention design for market and limit orders. Measure critical-term comprehension, exposure estimation, order errors, completion time, abandonment, restoration success, mistrust, missed context, and accessibility. Falsify the problem claim if crowding or competitor removal does not predict errors after accounting for terminology and product knowledge; reject the intervention if it fails to outperform both comparisons or breaches preset safety, delay, abandonment, or accessibility tolerances.","research_questions":["Do baseline users overlook or misinterpret decision-critical terms, and is visual competition an operative cause rather than terminology, literacy, complexity, or stale data?","Does protected absence outperform both the dense baseline and salience-only emphasis on comprehension and exposure accuracy?","Which content can be temporarily suppressed without concealing material context or causing loading-failure, incomplete-quote, or stale-price interpretations?","Can immediate restoration, edit, cancel, help, keyboard, screen-reader, and low-vision paths remain complete and discoverable?","How do effects and harms vary for novices, experienced investors, assistive-technology users, order types, and time-sensitive conditions?","What preregistered benefit and harm thresholds would justify further development or require rejection?","Would the named brokerage authorizers approve a bounded implementation, and what architecture and compliance work would it require?","What existing brokerage review and focus-mode patterns would narrow or eliminate the proposal's distinctiveness claim?"] ,"recommendation":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["No external evidence establishes the prevalence or magnitude of attentional-crowding errors.","No stakeholder demand, authorizer commitment, or willingness-to-adopt evidence is included.","The causal benefit, durability, and subgroup effects are hypothetical.","Production safety depends on complete and timely disclosure, accessible restoration, and preservation of immediate user action.","Deployment cost depends on unknown architecture, platform, jurisdiction, and approval scope.","Market size and realized impact are unmeasured.","Prior art and world novelty are unsearched and unverified."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is unsearched and unverified under this closed-book assessment. The proposal's structural distinction from the stated salience-only rival does not establish novelty, prevalence, or freedom from materially similar brokerage review and focus-mode implementations."}