{"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__sport_science","archetype_slug":"negative_space_design","domain_slug":"sport_science","title":"Protected Post-Repetition Self-Evaluation Windows","opportunity_summary":"Test whether brief, prebriefed intervals without noncritical coaching or performance displays help athletes estimate their own errors and improve retention or no-coach transfer, while preserving safety-critical instruction, feedback requests, consent, and immediate rollback.","adopter_authorizer":"A coach controlling practice feedback is the immediate adopter and authorizer; participating athletes retain consent, opt-out, and feedback-request authority, while a sport scientist may oversee measurement without overriding safety or consent.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Independent error detection, retention, and transfer are meaningful athlete outcomes, but the candidate supplies no external evidence for the prevalence, magnitude, or persistence of the proposed cue-dependence problem."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"The protocol addresses interests plausibly relevant to athletes and coaches, but the sealed candidate contains no demonstrated requests, adoption demand, dissatisfaction with ordinary feedback, or willingness to change practice."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Explicit, explained self-evaluation intervals and athlete-responsive feedback reintroduction could add value beyond preset fading, but superiority on calibration, retention, transfer, safety, or perceived support remains wholly hypothetical."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The candidate identifies a potentially specific combination of protected intervals, meaning checks, self-estimation, and responsive reintroduction, but prior art is unsearched and close overlap with reduced-frequency, fading, and self-controlled feedback is acknowledged."},"technical_implementability":{"score":5,"rationale":"For a low-risk skill, implementation mainly requires scheduling short intervals, suppressing noncritical cues and displays, recording athlete estimates, and restoring feedback under explicit stopping rules; no new technical capability is required by the proposal."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The coach, athlete, and sport scientist roles are clearly allocated, and the coach can alter feedback within a consented session; feasibility is reduced by shared practice environments, accessibility needs, adherence variation, and athlete interpretation of silence."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate provides observable states, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, comparators, measurable outcomes, a counterbalanced within-athlete design, safety exclusions, and rollback criteria, although outcome definitions and safe error bounds still require prespecification."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"The design retains safety-critical cues, permits athlete-requested feedback, excludes high-risk activity, specifies distress and hazardous-error stops, and restores ordinary feedback immediately; residual risks include delayed correction and erroneous-pattern stabilization."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The protocol could be reproduced with modest equipment across low-risk practice settings, but consistent coach adherence, protection from substitute displays, athlete-specific accessibility, and transfer across skills and risk levels are unresolved."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"A bounded prior-art comparison followed by protocol preparation and one small, consented, counterbalanced low-risk skill study comparing protected self-evaluation windows with ordinary immediate feedback and preset feedback fading, including a delayed retention check.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing practice space and ordinary recording or wearable equipment are available.","The study is limited to low-risk skills and a small participant group.","The band includes protocol design, consent, coach and sport-scientist labor, data handling, analysis, and a delayed check.","No specialized medical oversight or new hardware is required."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Prepare one sport program for controlled use after supportive evidence, including protocol adaptation, coach training, consent materials, display configuration, measurement definitions, and safety-bound prespecification.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Deployment remains limited to low-risk practice rather than competition or rehabilitation.","The organization already has coaches, facilities, and basic performance-measurement tools.","No regulated medical use or major software development is introduced."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Launch across several teams or training groups within one organization, with coach onboarding, athlete briefing, adherence monitoring, outcome evaluation, accessibility accommodations, and safety review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch uses existing staff and facilities but requires dedicated coordination and evaluation time.","Protocols must be adapted by skill and athlete population.","The intervention does not extend to high-risk, maximal, painful, or medically restricted activity."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Maintain the protocol within one organization through refresher training, consent administration, adherence audits, data review, accessibility adjustments, and incident or rollback review.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["No dedicated full-time role is required.","Existing measurement and display systems remain available.","Participant volume and the number of covered teams remain modest."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate gives observable indicators and a direct problem falsifier, but feedback crowding, cue dependence, and no-cue transfer deficits are hypotheses with no external prevalence or outcome evidence in the sealed packet."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The coach controls feedback practice, athletes control consent and feedback requests, and the sport scientist has a bounded measurement role."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal claims that an understood, protected self-estimation interval with athlete-responsive reintroduction may outperform ordinary immediate feedback and preset fading on calibration, retention, or transfer without unacceptable harms."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A low-risk, consented, counterbalanced within-athlete session with ordinary feedback, preset fading, and protected intervals can measure self-estimate accuracy and same-session transfer, followed by a bounded delayed-retention check."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate excludes hazardous contexts and safety-critical withholding, assigns consent and decision authority, permits immediate feedback requests, and specifies stopping and rollback conditions; residual risks are measurable within those safeguards."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate bounds the first setting to one low-risk skill session using coaches, athletes, ordinary displays, and measurement oversight, supporting broad resource bands despite low confidence in participant, labor, and equipment requirements."}},"blocking_evidence":["A target-setting interaction audit establishing that post-repetition feedback actually crowds out self-evaluation and that a no-cue calibration, retention, or transfer deficit is present.","Comparative evidence that protected self-evaluation windows improve calibration, delayed retention, or transfer relative to both ordinary immediate feedback and preset feedback fading.","Evidence that the protocol does not worsen hazardous errors, execution beyond a prespecified bound, distress, perceived support, or erroneous-pattern stabilization.","A bounded prior-art comparison determining whether the proposed combination is materially distinct from known reduced-frequency, bandwidth, faded, guided-estimation, or self-controlled feedback protocols.","Athlete and coach evidence that deliberate quiet is understood, acceptable, accessible, and operationally sustainable."],"next_evidence_step":"Conduct a bounded prior-art map comparing the proposed protocol feature-by-feature with feedback fading, reduced-frequency or bandwidth feedback, guided self-estimation, and self-controlled feedback; treat the incremental claim as falsified if protected prebriefed intervals plus athlete-responsive reintroduction are already materially represented, and otherwise use the resulting distinction to preregister the low-risk within-athlete comparison.","research_questions":["Do interaction audits in the intended practice setting confirm feedback crowding, rare athlete error estimates, and a measurable no-cue transfer or calibration deficit?","Does the protected-window protocol outperform ordinary immediate feedback and preset fading on self-estimate accuracy, delayed retention, and no-coach transfer?","Can athletes reliably distinguish deliberate quiet from neglect or disapproval, and which briefings or meaning checks are necessary?","Which skill levels or accessibility needs make immediate explicit feedback preferable or necessary?","What prespecified execution-error and distress bounds should halt the quiet condition?","Do substitute displays, teammates, or coach behavior refill the protected interval and weaken protocol fidelity?","Is the proposed mechanism materially distinct from existing feedback-frequency, bandwidth, fading, self-controlled-feedback, or guided self-estimation approaches?","Will coaches and athletes accept the protocol when requests for feedback and opt-outs carry no penalty?"] ,"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment: no external evidence was available or used.","Problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, and realized impact are unmeasured.","Prior art is explicitly unsearched, so novelty and protocol distinctiveness cannot be concluded.","Effectiveness, subgroup response, and comparative advantage are hypotheses rather than demonstrated results.","All cost bands are resource-equivalent estimates based only on the described actors and bounded low-risk setting; participant count, labor rates, data requirements, and equipment availability are unspecified.","Scalability beyond low-risk practice and applicability to high-risk, maximal, painful, or medically restricted activity are not established."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"The packet names preset feedback fading or reduced-frequency feedback as the nearest rival and flags possible overlap with bandwidth, self-controlled, and guided self-estimation protocols, but supplies no searched literature or practice evidence. This assessment therefore makes no claim about novelty, prevalence, or existing implementations."}