{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"negative_space_design__behavioral_economics","round_index":0,"assessments":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","search_queries":["independent judgment before seeing others estimates experiment social influence wisdom of crowds","prediction market hide others forecasts until initial forecast study","Delphi method anonymous independent estimates official RAND"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H1-S1","title":"How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect","publisher":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3107299/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["A laboratory experiment elicited private estimates before exposing participants to peer estimates or an aggregate estimate.","Social information reduced opinion diversity and could increase confidence without improving accuracy."]},{"source_id":"H1-S2","title":"Improving Collective Estimations Using Resistance to Social Influence","publisher":"PLOS Computational Biology","url":"https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004594","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["The analyzed experimental protocol collected a private estimate, revealed individual or aggregate social estimates, and then collected a revised estimate.","Participants systematically combined private and social information, and biased public information could concentrate estimates around an incorrect value."]},{"source_id":"H1-S3","title":"RAND Methodological Guidance for Conducting and Critically Appraising Delphi Panels","publisher":"RAND Corporation","url":"https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TLA3082-1.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["Delphi is an established structured process using anonymous expert judgments followed by sharing of other experts' answers over repeated rounds.","The method is used for forecasting and decisions under uncertainty."]}],"closest_analogue":"The private-estimate/social-information/revised-estimate experiments used by Lorenz and subsequent researchers, with Delphi as an institutionalized independent-then-social elicitation procedure.","overlap":"Both withhold peer judgments while an initial private estimate is recorded, subsequently reveal social information, permit revision, and evaluate aggregation or accuracy.","remaining_difference":"The hypothesis makes the initial entry irrevocable and proposes deployment in sequential forecasting, diagnosis, or allocation workflows; those implementation details do not create a distinct causal mechanism from the directly tested private-first protocol.","classification":"OBVIOUS_COLLISION","disposition":"REJECT","rationale":"The core treatment sequence has already been implemented experimentally and methodologically: private judgment first, social information second, revision afterward. The proposed workflow and irrevocability constraint are application variants rather than a clearly distinct intervention."},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","search_queries":["cooling off period commitment device experiment savings persistence","reflection period before commitment choice experiment cooling off consumer","commitment contract delay confirmation cancellation default behavioral economics","mandatory waiting period before financial commitment behavioral experiment reflection"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H2-S1","title":"Review documents before closing","publisher":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau","url":"https://www.consumerfinance.gov/owning-a-home/close/review-documents-before-closing/","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["Mortgage borrowers must receive a Closing Disclosure three business days before closing.","The interval is expressly available for reviewing terms, asking questions, and understanding the commitment before signing."]},{"source_id":"H2-S2","title":"Cooling-off Period for Sales Made at Home or Other Locations","publisher":"Federal Trade Commission","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/cooling-period-sales-made-home-or-other-locations","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["The FTC Cooling-Off Rule requires disclosure of a right to cancel covered sales within three business days after the transaction.","This is a post-transaction reversibility period, not an action-free interval before confirmation."]},{"source_id":"H2-S3","title":"When Commitment Fails: Evidence from a Field Experiment","publisher":"INFORMS / Management Science","url":"https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3236","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["A field experiment found that commitment-account users could select incentive-incompatible commitments.","Fifty-five percent of participating clients defaulted and incurred monetary losses, establishing the practical problem of poorly fitted commitment choices."]}],"closest_analogue":"The CFPB three-business-day pre-closing review period, complemented by post-sale cooling-off rights.","overlap":"Both separate exposure to consequential terms from an effectively binding act, preserve the terms for review, and aim to reduce pressured or poorly understood commitments.","remaining_difference":"The hypothesis concerns a minimally cued, action-free pause immediately before a voluntary self-binding device, specifically after loss framing, and predicts lower 30-day cancellation or default among accepters. The bounded test is whether such a pre-confirmation pause improves commitment durability relative to immediate confirmation while holding terms and transaction friction constant.","classification":"POSSIBLE_DISTINCTION","disposition":"ADVANCE","rationale":"Waiting and cooling-off periods are established, and commitment failure is documented, but the shallow search did not locate a direct test of a pre-confirmation reflection interval for voluntary behavioral commitment devices with persistence and target attainment as outcomes. Search absence is not treated as novelty; this is only a testable distinction."},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","search_queries":["leader speaks last independent judgments before discussion experiment group decision","sponsor last project review sunk cost escalation experiment","silent writing recommendations before leader speaks project decision protocol","leader should speak last reduce conformity group decision research"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H3-S1","title":"Some effects on a group of whether and when the head reveals his opinion","publisher":"Organizational Behavior and Human Performance / Elsevier","url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0030507367900025","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["An experiment assigned organizational heads to reveal their opinions at the beginning, at the end, at both points, or never during meetings with advisors.","Revealing the head's opinion increased coalescence among advisors, directly testing leader-opinion timing."]},{"source_id":"H3-S2","title":"Task Effectiveness and Interaction Process of a Modified Nominal Group Technique in Solving an Evaluation Problem","publisher":"Journal of Management / SAGE","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014920638601200409","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["A laboratory study compared a structured nominal-group procedure with unstructured group work and pooled individual effort.","The nominal-group family institutionalizes individual work before structured group interaction and has task-dependent performance effects."]},{"source_id":"H3-S3","title":"Testing the Groupthink Model: Effects of Promotional Leadership and Conformity Predisposition","publisher":"Social Behavior and Personality","url":"https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/doi%3A10.2224%2Fsbp.2001.29.1.31?id=ebsco%3Adoi%3A10.2224%2Fsbp.2001.29.1.31&sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Acrawler","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Groups with leaders who promoted a preferred solution displayed more groupthink symptoms and discussed fewer facts than groups with nonpromotional leaders.","The study directly connects directive leader expression to information-sharing quality."]}],"closest_analogue":"The 1967 experiment manipulating whether a formal head disclosed an opinion at the beginning or end of an advisory meeting, combined with nominal-group silent individual elicitation.","overlap":"Both delay the highest-status participant's evaluation, collect subordinate judgments before open influence, and seek broader evidence contribution and less conformity.","remaining_difference":"The proposed setting combines this established meeting structure with sunk-cost project reviews and later viability-threshold outcomes. That is a contextual and measurement extension, not a distinct treatment architecture.","classification":"OBVIOUS_COLLISION","disposition":"REJECT","rationale":"Leader-opinion timing and silent individual elicitation were directly studied decades ago, while related groupthink experiments connect promotional leadership to reduced fact discussion. Restricting the protocol to sunk-cost reviews does not preserve enough structural difference for this screen."},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","search_queries":["protected time buffer calendar scheduling experiment planning fallacy task completion","time buffers project scheduling experiment schedule reliability planning fallacy","calendar reserve slack no tasks overrun randomized trial weekly planning","contingency time scheduling buffer behavior study personal calendar"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H4-S1","title":"NASA Project Planning and Control Handbook","publisher":"National Aeronautics and Space Administration","url":"https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ppc-handbook-1-5-17.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["NASA defines schedule margin as an allowance carried in schedules to account for uncertainty and risk.","The handbook directs that margin be clearly identifiable, strategically located, controlled, and not used without approval."]},{"source_id":"H4-S2","title":"Proactive heuristic procedures for robust project scheduling: An experimental analysis","publisher":"European Journal of Operational Research / Elsevier","url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221706011805","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["The study evaluates algorithms that insert time buffers into schedules facing uncertain activity durations.","Its simulation experiments treat buffers as a way to improve baseline-schedule stability while respecting a due date."]},{"source_id":"H4-S3","title":"Corresponding Schedule Reserve Analyses","publisher":"Project Management Institute","url":"https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/corresponding-schedule-reserve-analyses-7788","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","claims_supported":["Schedule contingency is an established separately planned quantity intended to reduce missed schedule objectives.","The guidance discusses systematically allocating reserve so it remains available to absorb delays rather than being consumed first-come, first-served."]}],"closest_analogue":"Controlled schedule margin or contingency reserve, as specified by NASA and evaluated in robust project-scheduling research.","overlap":"Both create visible, bounded time with no planned task scope, protect it from routine consumption, size it against uncertainty, and release it only to absorb overruns or disruptions.","remaining_difference":"The hypothesis moves the established schedule-buffer mechanism from projects to individual person-week calendars and proposes overdue-task, cancellation, and completed-volume outcomes. The scale change does not alter the causal lever.","classification":"OBVIOUS_COLLISION","disposition":"REJECT","rationale":"Protected, explicitly identified, manager-controlled time reserves are standard schedule-management practice and have been subjected to simulation-based evaluation. The personal-calendar implementation is an application transfer of the same mechanism."},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","search_queries":["dashboard missing data mistaken for zero incidents study visualization","data absent reason standard no data versus zero FHIR","official dashboard guidance distinguish zero missing data","cause specific empty state missing delayed permission error dashboard"],"sources":[{"source_id":"H5-S1","title":"Observation - FHIR v4.0.1: Element Definitions","publisher":"Health Level Seven International","url":"https://hl7.org/fhir/R4/observation-definitions.html","source_class":"STANDARD","claims_supported":["FHIR defines Observation.dataAbsentReason to state why an expected value is missing.","The standard distinguishes actual values from absence caused by conditions such as error and requires the absence reason to appear only when the value is absent."]},{"source_id":"H5-S2","title":"Data Quality Assurance: Module 2—Desk Review of Data Quality","publisher":"World Health Organization","url":"https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/data-quality-pages/2021_-dqa_module-2_desk-review-of-data-quality.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["WHO directs that missing data be clearly differentiated from true zero values in district and facility reports.","The guidance warns that assigning zero to missing entries makes no-event periods indistinguishable from failures to report and calls for interpretation by data and program managers."]},{"source_id":"H5-S3","title":"Regulatory guidance: Dashboards","publisher":"Office for Statistics Regulation","url":"https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/guidance/regulatory-guidance-dashboards/","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["Official-statistics dashboards should communicate data quality, limitations, errors, revisions, and sufficient context for interpretation.","Dashboard design should be driven by identified user needs and maintained processes."]},{"source_id":"H5-S4","title":"Understanding the Effects of Visualizing Missing Values on Visual Data Exploration","publisher":"arXiv","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08723","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["An empirical study manipulated whether records with missing values were omitted or shown with estimated values and error bars.","The visualization treatment changed participants' decision-making workflow, showing that missing-data presentation can affect behavior."]}],"closest_analogue":"FHIR's cause-coded DataAbsentReason combined with WHO guidance requiring explicit separation of missing reports from true zeros.","overlap":"The sources already establish cause-coded absence, the missing-versus-zero distinction, interpretive context, and the premise that missing-data visualization can change decisions.","remaining_difference":"The hypothesis adds one cause-specific follow-up action and tests consequential oversight decisions—false no-incident classification, case closure, and data requests—rather than data representation or exploratory workflow alone. The bounded test is whether causal labels plus matched actions outperform an equally salient generic missing-data warning in regulator-like tasks.","classification":"POSSIBLE_DISTINCTION","disposition":"ADVANCE","rationale":"Cause-coded absence and missing-versus-zero guidance are established, so the representational idea is not novel. A narrower behavioral distinction remains: whether matching each diagnosed absence to an oversight action improves institutional follow-up beyond merely flagging missingness."}],"nominated_ids":["H2","H5"],"replenishment_recommended":false}