{"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__human_computer_interaction","archetype_slug":"negative_space_design","domain_slug":"human_computer_interaction","title":"Protected, Reversible Chrome Absence for Desktop Authoring","opportunity_summary":"Test an opt-in authoring mode that hides mapped secondary interface competitors, preserves a protected perimeter around the manuscript, retains critical status, and provides predictable keyboard, pointer, and assistive-technology recovery. The candidate is testable and reversible, but actual stakeholder demand, benefit magnitude, and distinctiveness from existing focus-mode patterns are unestablished.","adopter_authorizer":"A desktop authoring product owner could authorize an opt-in prototype, subject to accessibility and safety-review vetoes and participant-controlled activation and exit.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Improved composition continuity without loss of command or status access could matter to writers and editors, including accessibility users, but the packet provides no evidence about problem prevalence, effect magnitude, or downstream task outcomes."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies affected user groups and describes repeated collapsing or workarounds, but supplies no interviews, requests, observed frequencies, purchasing signals, or adopter commitment supporting active demand."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Protected spacing, explicit mode signaling, critical-status exemptions, and multimodal recovery form a testable improvement over the stated baseline and nearest rival, but no comparative results show that the bundle outperforms ordinary collapsing or progressive disclosure."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The bundle has proposal-specific elements, yet the packet itself notes familiar focus-mode and distraction-free authoring patterns and marks prior art as unsearched, so meaningful distinctiveness remains doubtful and externally unresolved."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Reversible visibility rules, responsive spacing, mode indication, and multiple recovery paths are concrete software behaviors suitable for prototyping; the main difficulty is reliably preserving semantics, critical states, and accessibility across input modes and screen sizes."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The product owner, participant control, accessibility and safety vetoes, excluded actions, and rollback conditions are explicitly assigned, making a limited prototype authorization feasible without implying production adoption."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet specifies a 12–16 participant within-subject comparison, task duration, outcome measures, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, exclusions, and halt rules; recruitment details and material-worsening thresholds remain unspecified."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"Opt-in activation, immediate recovery, retained semantic access, critical-status exemptions, and baseline rollback provide a meaningful safety net against stranding users, although the intervention could still disadvantage screen-reader, magnification, keyboard-only, novice, and state-monitoring users."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"A software feature could be distributed broadly once implemented, but hiding rules, critical-status classification, responsive behavior, localization, and accessibility regression testing would need continuing adaptation across workflows, platforms, and display sizes."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and build a controlled prototype, recruit and compensate 12–16 participants, run two 30-minute conditions per participant, include accessibility coverage, and analyze interruption, retrieval, comprehension, completion, and failure measures.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The test uses an existing authoring prototype or modifiable interface.","No production integration or default change is included.","Specialist accessibility review and participant coordination are included.","The study remains small and primarily formative."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Convert validated prototype behavior into an opt-in implementation for one desktop authoring product, including element mapping, critical-state exemptions, recovery paths, responsive layouts, accessibility engineering, and internal quality assurance.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The existing interface supports reversible visibility states without major architectural replacement.","Scope is limited to one product and a bounded set of desktop platforms.","No exact engineering complexity, design-system condition, or compliance requirement is supplied."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"250K_TO_1M","scope":"Production hardening and controlled launch for one established authoring product, including cross-platform and accessibility testing, telemetry safeguards, documentation, support preparation, localization, security and status review, and staged evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The launch covers a mature desktop product with multiple commands and status surfaces.","The mode remains opt-in and critical notifications remain exempt.","The band includes partner coordination and evaluation but not a wholesale editor redesign."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Maintain hiding and exemption rules as controls change, conduct accessibility and regression testing, review telemetry for misleading continuity measures, support users, and monitor command recovery and state-comprehension failures.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["One product family is maintained.","No dedicated large operations team is required.","Interface and collaboration-status changes create recurring validation work.","Exact release frequency and support volume are unknown."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The problem is recognizable and has an observable falsifier, but the sealed packet contains no external observation showing that secondary chrome commonly captures attention, causes disruption, or prompts manual collapsing."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet explicitly identifies the product owner as prototype authorizer, participants as controllers of activation and exit, and accessibility and safety reviewers as veto holders."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The protected, reversible absence bundle can be compared with the ordinary persistent workspace, and the packet names continuity, mistaken activation, command retrieval, state interpretation, completion, and accessibility outcomes that could falsify advantage."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A 12–16 participant within-subject prototype test with one 30-minute task per condition is bounded, non-production, participant-controlled, comparative, and governed by immediate halt and rollback rules."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate excludes critical status and semantic command removal, requires opt-in control, assigns reviewer vetoes, and specifies immediate restoration when recovery, context, state interpretation, or accessibility fails."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The feature scope is conceptually bounded, but the sealed candidate provides no architecture, platform count, staffing assumptions, compliance requirements, implementation estimate, or validated recurring-maintenance range."}},"blocking_evidence":["Baseline evidence that secondary chrome, rather than content complexity, external interruptions, poor information architecture, or undersized displays, materially disrupts sustained composition.","Comparative evidence that protected reversible absence improves continuity or mistaken-activation outcomes without materially worsening command retrieval, state comprehension, task completion, or accessibility.","Prior-art comparison establishing whether the protected perimeter, critical-status exemptions, state signaling, and multimodal recovery bundle is meaningfully distinct from existing focus-mode patterns.","Implementation discovery covering supported platforms, interface architecture, critical-state inventory, accessibility modes, and recurring maintenance requirements."],"next_evidence_step":"Run the authorized 12–16 participant within-subject prototype study, comparing the ordinary persistent workspace with protected reversible chrome absence during one 30-minute composition task per condition. Falsify progression if continuity and mistaken-activation measures do not improve, or if command retrieval, state comprehension, task completion, context retention, or accessibility materially worsens; halt immediately on any specified recovery or accessibility failure.","research_questions":["How often do secondary interface elements capture attention or interaction during sustained composition, and how often do users manually collapse them?","Are observed disruptions attributable to visible chrome rather than content complexity, external interruption, poor information architecture, or display size?","Which controls and statuses can be hidden without degrading rapid alternation among writing, formatting, navigation, references, and collaboration?","Does the intervention improve continuity or reduce mistaken activation relative to the ordinary workspace?","What thresholds define material worsening in command retrieval, state interpretation, task completion, and accessibility?","Can keyboard-only, screen-reader, magnification, and pointer users recover controls immediately and understand the active mode?","How does the proposed bundle differ from existing focus-mode, distraction-free, and progressive-disclosure implementations?","What engineering and maintenance effort is required across supported platforms, layouts, and changing control inventories?"],"recommendation":"VALIDATE_PROBLEM_FIRST","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no external evidence of prevalence, stakeholder demand, realized impact, market size, or prior art.","The observable-state description is a hypothesis rather than a reported measurement.","The proposed comparative effect and all accessibility outcomes remain untested.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges derived from stated scope, not vendor quotes or engineering estimates.","Scalability depends on unknown product architecture, platform diversity, interface-change frequency, and compliance obligations."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art is explicitly unsearched. This assessment does not establish novelty or prevalence and cannot determine whether the protected-boundary, state-signaling, critical-status-exemption, and multimodal-recovery bundle already exists in authoring products or HCI research."}