{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"negative_space_design__linguistics_semiotics","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"nsd_ls_002_single_prompt_elicitation_window","proposal_index":2,"version":0,"title":"Single-Prompt Elicitation Window","problem":"During a language-elicitation session, a fieldworker may respond to a consultant’s initial hesitation by immediately adding a paraphrase, candidate expression, grammatical contrast, or second question. These additions can make the eventual utterance difficult to separate from researcher priming. The candidate problem is not insufficient explanation in general; it is premature filling of the response slot before the consultant has had a bounded, intelligible opportunity to formulate, decline, or request clarification.","actors":["Language consultants or community research partners providing judgments or utterances","Fieldworkers conducting elicitation sessions","Project lead responsible for the elicitation protocol","Transcribers or analysts who determine which prompts preceded a response"],"observable_state":"In recordings of bounded elicitation tasks, an initial prompt is followed by additional researcher-supplied lexical or grammatical material before the consultant produces a response, explicitly declines, or requests clarification. The transcript can identify the timing and content of each added prompt and whether the final response reuses material introduced by the fieldworker.","consequence":"The resulting response may be less diagnostic of what the consultant would have produced from the initial stimulus, the provenance of linguistic forms may become harder to audit, and the consultant may have less practical control over whether to answer, seek clarification, or pass.","affected_objective":"Obtain interpretable, consultant-generated first responses while preserving clarification, consent, accessibility, and the option to decline.","intervention":"Introduce a single-prompt elicitation protocol with a protected response window. For each eligible item, the fieldworker delivers one pre-reviewed prompt and then withholds new lexical, grammatical, or candidate-answer material for a short, project-calibrated interval. A visible or previously agreed cue tells the consultant that the quiet interval is deliberate and that speaking, passing, or requesting clarification are all valid. Any consultant contribution immediately ends the interval. If no move occurs by the boundary, the fieldworker follows a staged reintroduction rule: first make a neutral availability check, then invite a clarification request, and only then offer a logged alternate prompt. The protocol records every reintroduction stage, retains unused follow-up prompts for later access, and exempts safety, consent, accessibility, distress, and recording-failure communication from silence.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Attention Competition Map","domain_realization":"Identify follow-up questions, paraphrases, examples, candidate forms, and evaluative reactions that can compete with the consultant’s formulation during the first response slot."},{"archetype_element":"Omission Candidate","domain_realization":"Treat researcher-supplied linguistic material after the initial prompt as temporarily withholdable until a response, pass, clarification request, or boundary trigger occurs."},{"archetype_element":"Protected Empty Space","domain_realization":"Reserve a bounded conversational interval in which the fieldworker does not fill the response slot with additional linguistic content."},{"archetype_element":"Positive Form Relationship","domain_realization":"Attach the quiet interval to one specific prompt so that it creates room for a response to that prompt rather than producing undirected silence."},{"archetype_element":"Absence Boundary","domain_realization":"Define the interval’s entrance, permitted events, maximum duration, and exit conditions in the session protocol."},{"archetype_element":"Meaning-of-Absence Check","domain_realization":"Use agreed cues and live observation to distinguish formulation time from confusion, refusal, discomfort, access difficulty, or technical failure."},{"archetype_element":"Reintroduction Trigger","domain_realization":"End the quiet interval upon a consultant move, an explicit request, the calibrated time boundary, a distress cue, or a safety or recording issue."},{"archetype_element":"Accessibility and Recoverability Guardrail","domain_realization":"Keep clarification and alternate prompts available, provide nonverbal or accessible response options, and log rather than discard withheld follow-ups."},{"archetype_element":"Clarity or Effect Test","domain_realization":"Compare whether first responses can be attributed to the initial prompt and whether participants correctly understand the purpose and exits of the quiet interval."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"facilitation_silence","role":"Requires the fieldworker, as the actor with procedural power and ready access to follow-up material, to refrain from filling the projected response slot while monitoring what the silence signifies.","counterfactual_removal":"Without protected facilitator silence, additional researcher language can enter before the consultant has responded, eliminating the proposed separation between initial stimulus and first production."},{"mechanism_slug":"editorial_cut","role":"Cuts redundant, premature, or answer-suggesting follow-ups from the immediate exchange while preserving them in the protocol for recoverable later use.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the recoverable cut, the prompt sequence remains crowded; if follow-ups were deleted permanently, necessary clarification could become unavailable."},{"mechanism_slug":"blank_or_rest_frame","role":"Places a recognizable quiet beat at the boundary between prompt delivery and response, with an explicit cue and designed exit rather than an indefinite pause.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a framed boundary, silence may read as interviewer disapproval, technical failure, or abandonment instead of an available response interval."},{"mechanism_slug":"pause_in_speech","role":"Calibrates the live duration of the fieldworker’s held pause to participant feedback and the processing demands of the elicitation item.","counterfactual_removal":"Without live calibration, a rigid interval may be too short to protect formulation or long enough to create discomfort and pressure."},{"mechanism_slug":"empty_state_design","role":"Differentiates possible no-response states—thinking, clarification needed, pass, distress, accessibility barrier, or recording failure—and assigns a distinct next action to each.","counterfactual_removal":"Without typed no-response states, the fieldworker may treat every silence as a request for more linguistic input and defeat the intervention."}],"causal_chain":["An initial elicitation prompt projects a response slot.","The fieldworker’s rapid paraphrases, examples, or candidate forms can occupy that slot before the consultant completes a first move.","The protocol temporarily omits those competing additions and protects a clearly bounded quiet interval.","Agreed pass and clarification options make the absence of fieldworker speech interpretable and escapable.","The consultant can formulate, answer, decline, or request help before new linguistic material is introduced.","If reintroduction becomes necessary, its staged form and logging preserve the provenance of later responses.","Responses produced before reintroduction can be distinguished operationally from responses following added researcher material."],"baseline":"Conduct the same eligible elicitation items using the project’s ordinary flexible interviewing practice, allowing the fieldworker to paraphrase, exemplify, repeat, or suggest a contrast whenever judged useful. Preserve the same consultant, setting, recording permissions, initial stimuli, and access to clarification.","nearest_rivals":["A verbal instruction to take as much time as needed without a protected no-follow-up interval","A fully scripted questionnaire that standardizes prompts but does not adapt when silence indicates confusion, refusal, or an access need","Written private responding, which changes the production modality and may not suit spoken-language elicitation","Post-hoc exclusion of apparently primed responses, which acts after researcher material has already shaped the exchange"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal’s testable distinction is the combination of one initial prompt, a protected interval in which the higher-control actor withholds new linguistic material, typed interpretations of non-response, and staged recoverable reintroduction. Standardized wording alone or a general invitation to take time does not instantiate that causal structure.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The project lead may approve a bounded protocol pilot, but each consultant controls whether to answer, pass, request clarification, or stop; the fieldworker retains authority to interrupt the interval for safety, consent, accessibility, distress, or technical reasons.","authorized_first_step":"Pilot the protocol only on preselected, low-sensitivity elicitation items with participants who have received an accessible explanation of the quiet interval and its exit options.","excluded_actions":["Using silence to pressure a participant into answering","Treating silence itself as evidence of intent, competence, agreement, or refusal","Withholding consent, safety, accessibility, compensation, or recording-status information","Applying the protocol to sensitive topics without separate review and participant agreement","Preventing spontaneous clarification or enforcing the full interval after a participant move","Discarding alternate prompts or concealing their use from subsequent analysts"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the protected interval immediately when a participant signals discomfort, confusion, withdrawal, an access need, or a wish for ordinary conversation. Halt the pilot if the cue is repeatedly misunderstood or the procedure impairs consent or rapport. Roll back to the approved ordinary elicitation protocol while retaining labeled pilot records under existing data permissions."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"Counterbalanced sessions show that the protected window does not change the attribution of first responses to the initial prompt, while participants misunderstand the silence, report greater pressure, or require more repair than under ordinary elicitation.","problem_falsifier":"The problem is falsified in the target workflow if recordings show that consultants already receive a recognizable opportunity to answer, pass, or request clarification before fieldworkers introduce additional linguistic material, and analysts can reliably attribute responses to their preceding prompts.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified if it does not increase the proportion of interpretable responses produced before added researcher language, if a simple take-your-time instruction performs equivalently, or if the protected interval causes unresolved confusion, discomfort, or loss of necessary clarification.","risks":["Silence from a higher-status researcher may be experienced as evaluation or disapproval.","A fixed timing rule may disregard individual, linguistic, cultural, cognitive, or modality-specific processing needs.","Consultants may infer that passing or requesting clarification is dispreferred despite the stated options.","Withholding a helpful paraphrase may temporarily increase confusion.","Fieldworkers may inconsistently classify silence states or delay necessary repair.","Focusing on unprompted first responses may privilege spontaneity when reflective or collaboratively constructed responses are the appropriate evidence."]},"next_evidence_step":"With existing community and project approval, select 24 low-sensitivity elicitation items whose initial prompts and acceptable clarification paths can be specified in advance. For each consenting consultant, counterbalance ordinary elicitation and the protected-window protocol across matched items. Independently code the recordings for added researcher material before the consultant’s first move, response/pass/clarification status, reuse of introduced forms, repair episodes, protocol departures, and the prompt history supporting each analyzable response. After each condition, ask the consultant whether the quiet interval’s purpose and exits were clear and whether it felt pressuring. Use the bounded comparison only to reject, revise, or justify further evaluation of the protocol.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 addresses perceptual crowding in an analyst-facing transcript and intervenes after data collection with a silence-lane renderer. This proposal addresses researcher prompt intrusion during live elicitation and intervenes at data creation through a bounded conversational procedure. Its causal path runs from withholding interviewer language to preserving the provenance of consultant responses, not from spatially displaying recorded gaps to improving later sequence interpretation. It is independently adoptable without the transcript renderer, and Proposal 1 can be adopted without changing elicitation conduct.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}