{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"negative_space_design__behavioral_economics","arm":"RETRIEVAL_FIRST","round_index":0,"hypotheses":[{"hypothesis_id":"H1","title":"Private-signal window before social proof","problem":"Visible prior choices can suppress private information and trigger inaccurate information cascades.","affected_stakeholder":"People making sequential forecasts, diagnoses, or allocation decisions.","workflow_boundary":"From presentation of the case to submission of an initial judgment, before aggregate choices appear.","failure_mode":"The actor copies an apparent consensus instead of reporting a conflicting private signal.","unit_of_analysis":"Individual decision within a sequential decision round.","causal_lever":"Withhold peer choices until an irrevocable initial judgment is recorded, then reveal them for revision.","archetype_mapping":"A protected informational void isolates the private signal; delayed reintroduction preserves access to social information.","expected_value":"Potentially improves information aggregation and identifies when later convergence reflects evidence rather than imitation.","falsifiable_claim":"Compared with immediate social-proof display, delayed display increases private-signal reporting and final group accuracy without increasing nonresponse.","diversity_rationale":"Targets sequential herding through information timing, unlike hypotheses about commitment, meetings, planning slack, or missing-data interpretation.","mechanism_slugs":["focus_mode_or_control_hiding","blank_or_rest_frame"],"search_questions":["Have experiments withheld peer choices until an initial judgment was submitted?","Under what task conditions does delayed social proof improve versus impair accuracy?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H2","title":"Cooling space before binding commitments","problem":"Loss-framed commitment offers can induce hurried, excessively strict self-binding that users later abandon.","affected_stakeholder":"Consumers selecting savings, debt-repayment, or usage-limit commitments.","workflow_boundary":"Between viewing projected consequences and confirming an irrevocable or costly-to-exit commitment.","failure_mode":"A transient loss response drives overcommitment, followed by cancellation, default, or avoidance.","unit_of_analysis":"Commitment offer accepted by an individual.","causal_lever":"Insert a minimally cued, action-free reflection interval before confirmation while keeping terms recoverable.","archetype_mapping":"A rest frame separates emotional framing from binding action and ends with an explicit reintroduction trigger.","expected_value":"Could improve commitment durability and informed fit, even if immediate uptake falls.","falsifiable_claim":"A reflection interval reduces 30-day cancellation or default among accepters without reducing the share achieving the target behavior.","diversity_rationale":"Changes temporal pacing at an individual binding decision rather than suppressing social information or restructuring collective deliberation.","mechanism_slugs":["blank_or_rest_frame","pause_in_speech"],"search_questions":["Do cooling-off pauses improve persistence in voluntary commitment devices?","What pause duration distinguishes reflection from abandonment or friction?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H3","title":"Sponsor silence in sunk-cost reviews","problem":"Project sponsors often fill review discussions first, reinforcing escalation around prior expenditure.","affected_stakeholder":"Team members and budget owners evaluating whether to continue troubled projects.","workflow_boundary":"From presentation of forward-looking evidence to the sponsor's first evaluative comment.","failure_mode":"Hierarchy and sunk-cost framing suppress independent stop, redirect, or dissent judgments.","unit_of_analysis":"Project continuation review meeting.","causal_lever":"Require silent individual recommendations and a protected discussion interval before the sponsor speaks.","archetype_mapping":"Facilitation silence withholds the highest-power voice so independent assessments can occupy the conversational space.","expected_value":"May surface dispersed negative evidence and improve termination or redirection decisions.","falsifiable_claim":"Relative to sponsor-first reviews, sponsor-last reviews increase distinct evidence contributions and reduce continuation of projects that later miss preset viability thresholds.","diversity_rationale":"Operates on power and speaking order at the meeting level, distinct from interface timing, personal planning, and dashboard states.","mechanism_slugs":["facilitation_silence","editorial_cut"],"search_questions":["Have sponsor-last or leader-last protocols been tested in sunk-cost decisions?","Which power or psychological-safety conditions make silence productive rather than coercive?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H4","title":"Protected slack in weekly plans","problem":"People fill all visible capacity when planning, leaving no room for delays and predictable bounded-rationality errors.","affected_stakeholder":"Shift workers, freelancers, and caregivers coordinating variable weekly obligations.","workflow_boundary":"During allocation of tasks to a finite weekly calendar, before the plan is finalized.","failure_mode":"Full-capacity scheduling converts minor shocks into cascading missed commitments.","unit_of_analysis":"Person-week plan.","causal_lever":"Reserve a bounded, visibly intentional block that cannot receive planned tasks but can absorb overruns.","archetype_mapping":"A temporal architectural void is sized from surrounding obligations and protected against routine infill.","expected_value":"Could improve completion reliability and reduce costly rescheduling without reducing useful workload.","falsifiable_claim":"Compared with unrestricted calendars, protected-slack calendars reduce overdue commitments and last-minute cancellations while preserving completed task volume.","diversity_rationale":"Uses unallocated capacity as a temporal buffer at the person-week level, rather than altering information, speech, commitment confirmation, or data interpretation.","mechanism_slugs":["architectural_void","margin_and_gutter_system"],"search_questions":["Have protected empty calendar blocks been tested against ordinary contingency planning?","How much slack preserves throughput under different levels of schedule volatility?"]},{"hypothesis_id":"H5","title":"Diagnosed absence on oversight dashboards","problem":"Blank monitoring dashboards can be mistaken for zero incidents when data are delayed, blocked, or unreported.","affected_stakeholder":"Inspectors, regulators, and public-interest analysts allocating oversight attention.","workflow_boundary":"From opening a monitoring record with no observations to deciding whether to close, wait, request data, or investigate.","failure_mode":"Ambiguous absence creates false reassurance and systematically favors under-reporting entities.","unit_of_analysis":"Oversight decision on an entity-period with no displayed observations.","causal_lever":"Classify the empty state by cause and show one cause-specific next action while preserving audit context.","archetype_mapping":"Empty-state design makes absence legible as no events, no report, delayed feed, permission block, or failure—not generic blankness.","expected_value":"May reduce erroneous case closure and make missingness behaviorally salient without adding dashboard clutter.","falsifiable_claim":"Cause-specific empty states reduce false 'no incident' classifications and increase appropriate follow-up compared with a generic zero-or-blank display.","diversity_rationale":"Targets inference from missing institutional data at the entity-period level, distinct from personal choice, group voice, and schedule-capacity interventions.","mechanism_slugs":["empty_state_design","whitespace"],"search_questions":["How often do oversight users equate missing data with zero events?","Have cause-specific empty states changed regulatory follow-up or missing-data decisions?"]}]}