{"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 short, explained intervals without noncritical coaching or performance displays allow athletes to estimate their own errors and improve calibration, retention, or no-coach transfer. The candidate is operationally specific and safety-bounded, but the prevalence of feedback crowding, comparative effectiveness, and distinctiveness from established feedback-control methods remain unverified.","adopter_authorizer":"The coach is the operational adopter and controls practice feedback; each athlete authorizes participation through consent, feedback requests, and opt-out rights. A sport scientist may oversee measurement but cannot override athlete consent or safety decisions.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the stated cue-dependence mechanism is present, improved independent error detection, delayed retention, and no-coach transfer would materially improve the candidate's stated learning objective. The score is limited because prevalence and realized outcome effects are unsupported hypotheses."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":3,"rationale":"Coaches and athletes have a plausible interest in retained, transferable skill, and the protocol preserves feedback requests and rollback. The sealed candidate provides no evidence that athletes or coaches currently perceive feedback crowding as a priority or would accept deliberate quiet."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Relative to ordinary immediate feedback and preset feedback fading, the proposal adds an explicit, prebriefed self-evaluation interval, an athlete error report or feedback request, and athlete-responsive reintroduction. Whether those additions improve outcomes over the named rivals is untested."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The protocol has a coherent combination of protected quiet, meaning checks, self-estimation, and responsive feedback, but it is closely adjacent to reduced-frequency, fading, self-controlled-feedback, and guided-estimation approaches named in the packet. Prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness is weakly supported."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A coach can delay noncritical verbal or display feedback for predefined low-risk trials using cue sheets and ordinary measurement tools. Implementation still depends on controlling substitute displays, maintaining consistent coach adherence, and defining safe execution bounds."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate clearly assigns feedback control to the coach, consent and opt-out authority to the athlete, and measurement to the sport scientist. Shared practice environments, organizational approval, and accessibility needs could add authorization requirements not specified in the packet."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":4,"rationale":"The candidate supplies observable states, separate problem and intervention falsifiers, a counterbalanced within-athlete design, baseline and feedback-fading comparisons, transfer and retention outcomes, adverse-effect measures, and stopping rules. Measurement definitions and sample requirements remain unspecified."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"The design could reduce cue dependence while protecting athlete agency through explanation, feedback requests, opt-out, immediate safety overrides, and restoration of ordinary feedback. It can also worsen hazardous errors, anxiety, perceived disapproval, accessibility, or error stabilization, so net benefit is uncertain."},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"The core intervention is lightweight and could be represented in coaching scripts or cue sheets, but safe delay thresholds, suitable skills, accessibility accommodations, display control, and coaching norms are likely context-specific. No multi-coach or multi-sport evidence is supplied."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"UNDER_10K","scope":"A bounded prior-art and protocol-component comparison covering ordinary feedback, preset fading, reduced-frequency feedback, self-controlled feedback, and guided self-estimation before human testing.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The review is narrowly scoped rather than systematic across every sport and motor-learning literature.","Existing institutional information access and one qualified reviewer are available.","No participant recruitment, equipment purchase, or live practice session is included."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design and execute the authorized controlled pilot for one low-risk skill setting, including protocol specification, consent, coach preparation, measurement setup, same-session transfer testing, delayed retention testing, and analysis.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A small number of athletes and one or a few coaches participate through an existing partner.","Existing practice space, video, displays, or wearables can be used.","The skill does not require specialized medical monitoring or high-cost equipment.","Institutional review, compliance, and data-governance requirements remain modest."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Launch the protocol across a bounded sport program with multiple coaches, including training, adherence checks, accessibility adaptations, safe-bound definitions, measurement workflows, and program-level evaluation.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch is limited to low-risk skills within one organization rather than multiple institutions or sports.","Existing coaching and performance-analysis systems can be adapted.","No bespoke wearable platform or regulated medical system is developed.","Program leadership and athlete representatives participate in governance."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Ongoing coach onboarding, adherence auditing, athlete feedback and opt-out administration, measurement review, protocol updates, and limited outcome monitoring for one sport program.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The intervention remains a coaching protocol rather than a new software product.","Most measurement infrastructure already exists.","Staff turnover and the number of covered skills remain limited.","No continuous independent research study or medical supervision is required."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate defines recognizable external observations: feedback occupying most post-repetition intervals, rare athlete error estimates before correction, and disproportionate deterioration on delayed retention or no-coach transfer trials. Whether these observations are prevalent in a target setting still requires measurement."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The coach controls feedback and can adopt the protocol, while each athlete controls consent, opt-out, and feedback requests; the sport scientist has a bounded measurement role."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate claims that protected, explained self-evaluation windows with athlete reporting or feedback requests may outperform ordinary immediate feedback and preset feedback fading on calibration, retention, or transfer without unacceptable harms."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The packet authorizes a consented, counterbalanced pilot in one low-risk skill session with ordinary-feedback and protected-window conditions, same-session transfer, delayed retention, prespecified safe bounds, and immediate rollback."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The candidate excludes high-risk, maximal, painful, or medically restricted activity; preserves safety-critical cues; assigns consent authority; and specifies immediate stopping and rollback conditions. These controls support research without establishing effectiveness."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The candidate identifies actors, practice materials, and a bounded pilot but supplies no participant count, measurement burden, compliance setting, equipment inventory, organization size, or implementation resource range. The evaluator's broad bands therefore depend on explicit assumptions rather than sealed cost evidence."}},"blocking_evidence":["No interaction audit establishes that feedback crowding, absent self-estimation, or a no-cue transfer deficit occurs in the intended setting.","No comparative evidence shows that protected self-evaluation windows improve calibration, delayed retention, or transfer over ordinary feedback or preset feedback fading.","No evidence establishes that delayed correction stays within safe execution bounds or avoids stabilizing erroneous movement patterns.","Athlete understanding of deliberate quiet, perceived support, distress, accessibility, and willingness to request feedback are unmeasured.","Coach adherence and the risk that live displays replace omitted verbal feedback are unmeasured.","Prior art is unsearched, leaving distinctiveness from reduced-frequency, bandwidth, fading, self-controlled-feedback, and guided self-estimation protocols unresolved."],"next_evidence_step":"First conduct a bounded prior-art comparison that maps the candidate's protected, prebriefed self-evaluation interval, athlete error report or feedback request, meaning check, and responsive reintroduction against the named neighboring protocols. Treat a materially equivalent established protocol as the distinctiveness falsifier; if that falsifier is not met, proceed separately to the authorized controlled low-risk pilot rather than operational deployment.","research_questions":["Do interaction audits in candidate practice settings show that noncritical feedback or displays occupy most post-repetition intervals and suppress athlete self-estimation?","Is any observed no-cue transfer or delayed-retention deficit associated with feedback crowding rather than skill difficulty, athlete experience, fatigue, or another factor?","Does the protected-window condition improve self-estimate accuracy, delayed retention, or no-coach transfer relative to ordinary immediate feedback?","Does it add measurable benefit over preset feedback fading or another matched reduction in feedback frequency?","Can athletes reliably distinguish deliberate quiet from neglect or disapproval, and do perceived support, anxiety, or feedback-request behavior worsen?","Which experience levels, accessibility needs, and skill types require more explicit or frequent cues?","Can coaches apply the protocol consistently while preventing substitute displays from filling the interval?","What execution-error threshold safely triggers immediate feedback and rollback for each eligible skill?","Does prior art already combine protected, explained self-evaluation windows with athlete-responsive feedback reintroduction in a materially equivalent protocol?"],"recommendation":"PRIOR_ART_RESEARCH","uncertainty_constraints":["Closed-book assessment provides no evidence of problem prevalence, stakeholder demand, market size, or realized impact.","Effectiveness, safety, retention, and transfer claims remain hypotheses.","Distinctiveness cannot be inferred from structural specificity because neighboring feedback methods are acknowledged but not compared externally.","Cost bands are resource-equivalent planning ranges based on a small existing partner setting; participant scale, compliance requirements, equipment needs, and organizational scope are unknown.","The earliest horizon applies to a bounded prior-art comparison or small controlled study, not validated operational adoption.","Results from one low-risk skill or athlete group may not generalize across experience levels, sports, accessibility needs, or higher-risk tasks."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior art was not searched and remains unverified in this closed-book assessment. No conclusion is made about novelty, prevalence, market position, or whether the proposed protocol is already known or routinely practiced."}