{"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__statistics_experimental_design","archetype_slug":"negative_space_design","domain_slug":"statistics_experimental_design","title":"Protected Primary-Result Surface for Multiplicity-Rich Reports","opportunity_summary":"Test whether placing the preregistered primary estimate, uncertainty, and decision rule on a protected initial surface—while retaining recoverable supporting results and mandatory safety information—improves interpretation compared with both a dense report and an all-visible visual hierarchy. The mechanism is specific and testable, but problem prevalence, comparative effectiveness, stakeholder demand, and prior-art distinctiveness are unsupported.","adopter_authorizer":"The study owner and an independent statistical or ethics reviewer would jointly authorize the reporting template, with safety owners retaining authority over mandatory visibility.","scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Correcting mistaken stop, continuation, or adoption decisions could be consequential for participants and affected populations, but the packet provides no evidence about how often crowding causes such errors or their realized severity."},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"Study owners, analysts, reviewers, and safety owners are identifiable potential stakeholders, but the sealed candidate contains no expressed demand, adoption inquiry, observed complaint, or willingness to change reporting practice."},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Protected initial visibility makes a distinct incremental claim against both a dense baseline and an all-visible hierarchical rival, but no results show that protected omission adds value beyond ordering, typography, or statistical training."},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"The proposal is internally differentiated by recoverable layering and explicit safety exemptions, but prior art is unsearched, so distinctiveness from existing reporting and dashboard practices remains unresolved."},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A layered report template and simulated three-arm comparison appear technically feasible using ordinary reporting interfaces, although accessibility, reliable retrieval, and platform-specific implementation require validation."},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"The packet identifies joint authorization by the study owner and independent statistical or ethics reviewer and preserves safety-owner control; feasibility may decline where reporting standards or multiple institutional owners constrain templates."},"evidence_readiness":{"score":5,"rationale":"The candidate specifies a bounded randomized pilot, participant range, three explicit comparators, decision-relevant outcomes, intervention and problem falsifiers, exclusions, and halt criteria."},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"The format could indirectly protect people affected by experiment-driven decisions and includes rollback and mandatory safety visibility, but direct benefit to vulnerable populations and performance in high-stakes settings are unmeasured."},"scalability":{"score":4,"rationale":"A validated template could be reused across many reports and dashboards at relatively low marginal effort, but evidential hierarchies, safety requirements, accessibility, and simultaneous exploratory needs vary by domain."}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Design, recruit, execute, and analyze the specified randomized simulated-report study, including stimulus preparation, participant compensation, accessibility checks, statistical analysis, and independent safety review.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["The study remains limited to the specified non-live pilot.","Suitable participants can be recruited without unusually expensive specialist access.","Existing survey or experiment software can present all three report formats.","No regulated live decision or sensitive production dataset is involved."]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Create and approve a reusable protected-primary template for one bounded reporting workflow, including full-detail recovery, safety exemptions, accessibility review, documentation, and audit logging.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The adopter can modify an existing reporting system rather than replace it.","The first deployment covers one organization and a limited set of report types.","Mandatory reporting and retention requirements permit layered presentation.","No bespoke hardware or major data migration is required."]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Launch the approved format across an initial operational program with system integration, governance review, staff training, quality assurance, monitoring, and comparative evaluation before high-stakes use.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Launch spans several teams or report types but not an enterprise-wide transformation.","Safety owners and statistical reviewers participate in configuration and approval.","The organization maintains an all-visible fallback during rollout.","Additional regulated validation could move the effort into a higher band."]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Maintain templates and reveal paths, audit recoverability and safety visibility, support users, review exceptions, monitor interpretation outcomes, and update accessibility compliance.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The implementation uses existing reporting infrastructure.","Monitoring is periodic rather than continuous for every report.","The number of supported templates remains bounded.","Major platform redevelopment and new regulatory validation are excluded."]}},"research_burden":"MODERATE","earliest_credible_horizon":"0_TO_3_MONTHS","pipeline_gates":{"recognizable_externally_supportable_problem":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The packet describes a recognizable mechanism and observable state, but labels reader error as a hypothesis and supplies no representative evidence that crowding materially impairs identification or decisions."},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"The study owner and independent statistical or ethics reviewer are explicitly assigned joint authorization, while safety owners control mandatory visibility."},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The protected-primary format is explicitly distinguishable from both the dense baseline and the all-visible hierarchical rival and has defined comparative outcomes and falsifiers."},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A randomized non-live simulated-report pilot with a specified participant range, three conditions, measurable outcomes, exclusions, and halt rules is already defined."},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"For the proposed non-live pilot, adverse events and other safety-critical context must remain visible, full details must remain recoverable, joint authority is defined, and deterioration in safety detection triggers immediate halt and rollback."},"implementation_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The intervention's functional scope is bounded, but the packet does not specify reporting platforms, regulatory setting, accessibility requirements, integration breadth, or organizational scale sufficiently to affirm a deployment range beyond broad assumption-dependent bands."}},"blocking_evidence":["Representative evidence that intended users fail to identify the primary estimand or evidential status because of density or salience rather than literacy, incentives, or another cause.","Comparative evidence that the protected-primary format improves identification or prespecified decision accuracy over both the dense baseline and the all-visible hierarchical rival.","Noninferiority evidence for safety-signal detection and reliable retrieval of secondary, exploratory, diagnostic, and subgroup results, including accessibility testing.","Evidence that study owners, reviewers, and safety owners consider the problem important enough to authorize and maintain a changed reporting workflow.","External prior-art research establishing whether the mechanism is meaningfully distinct from existing statistical-reporting, layered-disclosure, and dashboard practices."],"next_evidence_step":"Run the authorized randomized, no-live-decision simulated-report study with 40–80 intended users, comparing the dense baseline, all-visible hierarchical rival, and protected-primary format. Advance only if the protected format improves primary-estimand identification or prespecified decision accuracy over both comparators without materially worsening safety-signal detection or full-detail retrieval; falsify the problem if baseline users are already reliably accurate and prompt, and halt on any inaccessible safety item or failed recovery path.","research_questions":["Does report density or equal salience causally reduce primary-estimand identification and decision accuracy among representative users?","Does protected initial omission outperform an all-visible hierarchy, or does arrangement alone capture the benefit?","Can safety signals, model diagnostics, uncertainty, missingness, and protocol deviations remain promptly detectable across user groups and accessibility modes?","Do users reliably discover and correctly interpret the full-detail recovery layer without treating initially absent material as nonexistent or null?","Which report types require simultaneous exploratory evidence and therefore cannot safely use the protected surface?","Which identified authorizers perceive sufficient operational value to adopt and govern the format after favorable pilot results?","How does performance transfer from simulated reports to higher-stakes review without enabling selective reporting or spin?","What existing reporting or dashboard practices constitute relevant prior art for the protected-primary mechanism? "],"recommendation":"PILOT_NOW","uncertainty_constraints":["No external evidence supports problem prevalence, market size, stakeholder demand, realized impact, or world novelty.","All proposed interpretation and decision benefits remain hypotheses until the comparative pilot is completed.","Simulation results may not generalize to live, high-stakes, regulated, or incentive-conflicted decisions.","Implementation costs depend materially on platform, regulatory setting, accessibility obligations, workflow breadth, and reviewer availability.","Layered disclosure may create selective-reporting, safety-detection, diagnostic-visibility, and accessibility risks despite technical recoverability.","The intervention is unsuitable where the evidential hierarchy cannot be prespecified or exploratory information is simultaneously necessary for the decision."],"closed_book_prior_art_boundary":"Prior-art status is UNSEARCHED. This assessment supports only the internal differentiation and testability of the proposed mechanism; it makes no claim about originality, existing implementations, prevalence, competitive advantage, or freedom to operate."}