{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","source_assessment_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__human_computer_interaction:P4:v0","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__human_computer_interaction","proposal_index":4,"qualification":"EMPIRICAL_PARTNER_CANDIDATE","criteria":{"specific_differentiated_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposal makes a specific, falsifiable scope-preservation claim: trace provenance must remain trace-local, exact global non-influence is allowed only within an enforced finite-total fragment, and unrestricted analysis must return a replayable witness or explicit unknown while keeping external dependencies distinct."},"credible_problem_signal":{"status":"YES","reason":"Official guidance and primary HCI evidence establish real adaptive-interface use, intelligibility problems, measurable effects of explanation design, and the importance of accurate scope and knowledge-limit communication, although the exact failure mode's prevalence remains unmeasured."},"identifiable_partner_or_adopter":{"status":"YES","reason":"A product team operating an adaptive interface is a concrete adopter class, with product, interaction-design, accessibility or data-governance, formal-review, support, and privacy/security owners able to authorize and evaluate the proposed audit."},"partner_access_is_necessary":{"status":"YES","reason":"A decisive test requires access to one actual nonproduction adaptation component, its rule semantics and current explanation comparator, authorized representative traces or fixtures, dependency and feature definitions, workflow owners, and representative users or reviewers. Public research cannot establish fragment enforceability, trace fidelity, workflow fit, privacy controls, comprehension, or adopter pull in that component."},"safe_authorized_first_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"The first step is an offline shadow study that cannot alter profiles, interfaces, permissions, eligibility, or service outcomes. It freezes semantics in advance, permits synthetic or minimized authorized traces, restricts access, separates incomplete states, and includes explicit halt and rollback conditions."},"bounded_decisive_empirical_design":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed one-component study uses 30–50 seeded fixtures, independent proof review, three explanation comparators, at least 24 representative participants, predefined continuation thresholds, and concrete technical and comprehension falsifiers."},"no_material_negative_gate":{"status":"YES","reason":"All substantive pipeline gates are YES. Cost scope is uncertain rather than materially negative, and cost is not the sole remaining uncertainty; the first test remains bounded by a defined component, fixture count, participant count, and planning range."},"not_merely_more_research":{"status":"YES","reason":"The next action is an executable preregistered partner study with frozen artifacts, implementation tasks, comparator conditions, quantitative thresholds, authority controls, and explicit stop conditions—not another literature search."}},"uncertainty_types":["PROBLEM_PREVALENCE","ADOPTER_PULL","INCREMENTAL_EFFECT","WORKFLOW_FIT","DATA_ACCESS","COST_SCOPE"],"partner_profile":"A product organization operating one rule-driven adaptive interface with a nonproduction execution harness and current reason-code or log-based explanations; it must provide a named product decision owner plus interaction-design, accessibility or data-governance, personalization-engineering, privacy/security, support, and independent formal-review participants.","required_access":"Authorized offline access to one nonproduction adaptive component; versioned rule semantics and feature/context definitions; declared output predicate and external dependencies; current reason-code or log-viewer comparator; synthetic and minimized representative traces; fixture execution and witness-replay capability; relevant privacy and retention controls; and representative users, designers, support staff, and reviewers for the comprehension study.","bounded_empirical_test":"Preregister and run an offline shadow study on exactly one component. Freeze the feature-isolation relation, context domains, output predicate, rule semantics, finite-fragment grammar, resource bounds, dependency declarations, and status alphabet. Test 30–50 seeded trace, finite, unrestricted, timeout, aliasing, nondeterminism, external-dependency, missing-log, and tool-failure cases; independently review the reduction and finite decider; then compare current reason codes/logs, identical evidence without scope labels, and the proposed routed labels with at least 24 representative participants.","success_condition":"Every exact finite verdict is correct; every positive witness replays; a nonterminating candidate never starves a later finite witness; zero incomplete cases are rendered as non-influence; all external dependencies are disclosed; no unauthorized trace data are exposed; at least 80% of participants correctly identify each label's quantifier; and the proposed condition improves scope comprehension by at least 20 percentage points over both comparators without material task-time or accessibility regression.","falsification_condition":"Disqualify or redesign the intervention if finite-fragment membership is bypassable, the checked reduction or decider is invalid, any seeded exact negative is false, a valid witness is rejected or cannot be replayed, scheduling starves a discoverable witness, an external dependency is hidden, trace evidence is generalized beyond its scope, unknown or failure states collapse into non-influence, unauthorized data are exposed, or the labeled interface misses the comprehension threshold.","rationale":"This is a narrow empirical-partner candidate because adjacent prior art supports the problem and constituent mechanisms but does not resolve the candidate's integrated operational claim. Partner access is essential to test component-specific enforcement, provenance fidelity, external dependencies, workflow and privacy fit, user interpretation, adopter pull, and comparative benefit. The proposed offline comparator study is safe, bounded, authorized, and capable of decisively supporting or falsifying continuation."}