{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"catalytic_pathway_enablement__human_computer_interaction","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"hci_consentful_breakdown_capsule_gateway","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Consentful Breakdown-to-Replay Gateway","problem":"When a user encounters an interface breakdown, converting that situated experience into a developer-reproducible case repeatedly requires the user, support staff, and product team to reconstruct interface state, intended action, actual response, assistive-technology context, and software version. The endpoint—a sufficiently specified issue for investigation—is already feasible, but the recurring reconstruction and translation burden causes cases to stall or lose decisive context.","actors":["Users encountering an interaction breakdown","Customer-support staff","Accessibility and UX researchers","Product designers and engineers","Privacy and security reviewers","Gateway service steward"],"observable_state":"A submitted interaction issue lacks one or more of the intended action, visible interface state, actual response, client or assistive-technology context, and reproducible action sequence; clarification exchanges accumulate; developers cannot reproduce the reported state; or the user abandons intake before a usable case is produced.","consequence":"Interaction barriers remain unresolved longer, users repeat disclosure and reconstruction work, product teams spend attention eliciting missing context, and issues affecting uncommon configurations can be closed or deprioritized because the underlying state cannot be examined reliably.","affected_objective":"Reduce the elapsed and human reconstruction work between a user-observed interaction breakdown and a privacy-safe, reproducible investigation capsule, without changing issue acceptance, prioritization, accessibility, consent, or remediation standards.","intervention":"Pilot a user-invoked gateway that, after granular consent, temporarily binds a breakdown report to a bounded interface-state snapshot. The user supplies the intended action and confirms the actual outcome; the reusable service adds permitted client, component, event, and assistive-technology metadata, removes prohibited content, validates completeness, and produces a versioned replay capsule for human review. Ineligible or ambiguous cases go to ordinary support or moderated research. After release, the service purges transient raw capture, resets its processing context, records the cycle outcome, and returns ready for another case. Queue, exception, leakage, reproduction, and degradation signals govern intake, refresh, and shutdown.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform a consented, situated interaction breakdown into a privacy-safe capsule from which an authorized product-team member can reconstruct the relevant interface state and attempted action."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier","domain_realization":"Each case must reconstruct transient UI state and translate a user's experience into technical reproduction details across user, support, research, and engineering vocabularies."},{"archetype_element":"Eligible substrate","domain_realization":"User-invoked breakdowns on pilot-listed, non-sensitive product surfaces and supported client configurations, with explicit consent and enough local state to apply the capture contract."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"A versioned capsule compiler that repeatedly joins permitted state and event metadata with the user's stated intent, validates the result, and emits a reviewable replay package."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"A visible report control declares what will be captured, lets the user describe intent, preview and redact the capsule, and submit, withdraw, or use the ordinary reporting route."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule and permitted pathway","domain_realization":"The gateway accepts only listed surfaces and metadata classes; it blocks credentials, payment data, unrelated free text, third-party content, and unsupported contexts, routing doubtful cases to human intake."},{"archetype_element":"Release condition","domain_realization":"The capsule is released only after automated checks and user confirmation, and remains an investigation input rather than an approval, priority, diagnosis, or remediation decision."},{"archetype_element":"Regeneration cycle","domain_realization":"After each completed or withdrawn case, raw transient capture and per-case processing state are purged; filters and component mappings are revalidated after leakage, schema drift, or failed reproduction."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover capacity","domain_realization":"Useful cycles are capsules accepted for investigation per service instance and time window, measured alongside processing time, queue depth, exception work, reproduction outcome, and recovery time."},{"archetype_element":"Inhibition and poisoning","domain_realization":"Unexpected sensitive fields, stale component identifiers, unsupported extensions, malformed event streams, or excessive capture volume can occupy or corrupt the service and trigger quarantine."},{"archetype_element":"Downstream recipient","domain_realization":"An authorized accessibility, design, or engineering triager receives the capsule through the existing issue system; downstream review capacity limits admitted pilot volume."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality","domain_realization":"The gateway changes the rate and fidelity of case specification only; it does not make an infeasible fix feasible or alter product priorities, evidentiary standards, user rights, or release authority."},{"archetype_element":"Accountable steward and deactivation","domain_realization":"A named UX-accessibility service owner maintains access rules, privacy controls, capacity, audit sampling, refresh, and incident response, with privacy or security owners empowered to stop capture immediately."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Defines permitted inputs, prohibited content, capsule postconditions, user controls, supported contexts, and the invariant that the gateway supplies evidence rather than decisions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the contract, each report still requires negotiated interpretation and the capture boundary can expand silently."},{"mechanism_slug":"workflow_automation_or_macro","role":"Acts as the reusable facilitator by assembling, redacting, validating, logging, and releasing a capsule on repeated invocations.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the automation, support or research staff must reconstruct and format the same contextual evidence case by case."},{"mechanism_slug":"inhibitor_and_poison_screen","role":"Checks incoming state for prohibited data, malformed streams, stale mappings, and unsupported contexts before they enter the compiler.","counterfactual_removal":"Without upstream screening, one incompatible or sensitive case can corrupt output, consume review capacity, or require suspension after exposure."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Shows queue depth, processing and human-check occupancy, cycle time, exception rate, failed reproduction, and privacy-filter alarms so pilot intake follows active capacity.","counterfactual_removal":"Without capacity and degradation visibility, operators can confuse saturation with compiler drift and continue admitting cases into a failing path."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Purges transient case state after release, revalidates mappings and filters after degradation signals, and retires a version that cannot regain its operating envelope.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration and retirement, retained data and accumulated schema drift make the nominally reusable gateway progressively less safe and selective."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Compares useful capsules per service cycle with ordinary intake while counting reproduction failures, incorrect reconstructions, reroutes, withdrawals, and privacy defects.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the assay, faster submissions or easier selected cases could be mistaken for catalytic barrier reduction."},{"mechanism_slug":"small_safe_to_fail_probe","role":"Restricts initial use to a reversible shadow trial with predeclared pass, stop, and deletion conditions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded counterfactual probe, privacy, selectivity, and reproduction failures could propagate before the facilitator's contribution is distinguishable."}],"causal_chain":["A user encounters a breakdown on an eligible interface and deliberately invokes the gateway.","The interface contract requests intent and bounded consent while collecting only permitted contextual state.","The poison screen blocks or reroutes prohibited, malformed, stale, or unsupported cases before compilation.","The reusable compiler binds user intent, attempted action, observed response, and permitted technical context into a versioned capsule.","The user previews, redacts, confirms, or withdraws the capsule; automated validation rejects incomplete output.","An authorized triager receives the released capsule and attempts reproduction under unchanged investigation and prioritization standards.","Cycle outcome, queue, exceptions, leakage alarms, and reproduction results update the capacity and selectivity record.","Transient capture is purged and the compiler resets; degradation triggers refresh, quarantine, or retirement before another cycle.","Matched comparison with ordinary intake determines whether the gateway lowered reconstruction burden without unacceptable off-target capture or downstream overload."],"baseline":"Ordinary user-initiated support or feedback intake: the user writes a narrative or supplies screenshots, support requests missing context, and researchers or engineers manually reconstruct the relevant interface state and action sequence. The comparison holds eligibility, product surface, substantive triage standard, staffing, and downstream decision authority constant.","nearest_rivals":["A conventional structured bug-report template, which prompts for details but does not automatically bind transient interface state, validate a replay capsule, or execute a reset cycle.","General-purpose session replay or telemetry, which records broad behavior for observation but is not necessarily user-invoked, case-selective, previewable, or compiled around the user's intended action.","An embedded UX researcher or specialist triage lane, which can translate reports well but consumes scarce human judgment per case and may become the principal facilitator.","Additional support staffing, which expands bulk intake capacity but does not establish a reusable lower-barrier transformation interface."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal specifically tests whether a selective, user-controlled, regenerating compiler can repeatedly convert situated breakdowns into reproducible investigation capsules. Its contrast with the rivals rests on the complete cycle—bounded encounter, compilation, release, measured turnover and selectivity, purge and reset—not on calling ordinary reporting, telemetry, or staffing catalytic.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The product accessibility or UX research lead may authorize the bounded shadow pilot only with privacy and security approval. Users control capture and submission of their own case. Existing product owners retain investigation, priority, remediation, and release decisions; privacy and security owners retain immediate stop authority.","authorized_first_step":"Run a shadow-mode usability-lab probe on at most 15 consented breakdown events drawn from pilot-listed, non-sensitive interface tasks. Produce gateway and ordinary-intake artifacts for blinded reproduction attempts, but allow only researcher-approved artifacts into the existing issue system.","excluded_actions":["Background or always-on capture","Capture of credentials, payment data, unrelated free text, third-party content, or unlisted sensitive surfaces","Automatic diagnosis, prioritization, approval, remediation, or production changes","Weakening existing accessibility, privacy, security, evidentiary, or issue-acceptance standards","Using gateway eligibility as the only reporting route","Retaining raw transient capture after the declared review and purge point","Expanding beyond the bounded pilot without a separate authorization decision"],"halt_rollback":"Immediately disable collection and quarantine unreviewed capsules upon prohibited-data capture, unauthorized access, incorrect reconstruction with plausible harmful consequences, user-control failure, or inability to verify purge. Delete recoverable pilot raw data according to the predeclared protocol, preserve only authorized incident evidence, revert participants to ordinary intake, and require privacy, security, and service-owner review before any restart."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"For matched breakdowns, ordinary intake yields equally usable or better reproduction artifacts with no greater user or staff reconstruction work, while the gateway adds privacy risk, false reconstruction, exception labor, or queueing.","problem_falsifier":"Direct observation shows that cases already contain sufficient reproducible context and that delay occurs mainly after successful reproduction because remediation authority, engineering capacity, or product incentives are missing; the proposed recurring reconstruction barrier is therefore not rate-limiting.","intervention_falsifier":"The gateway fails to increase correctly reproduced cases or reduce clarification and reconstruction work under held-constant standards, cannot remain within the prohibited-data and incorrect-reconstruction stop rules, or requires human repair effort roughly proportional to every output, making the proposed reusable facilitator ineffective.","risks":["Sensitive or unrelated information may enter a capsule despite filtering.","A technically plausible replay may misrepresent the user's experienced breakdown or accessibility context.","Supported-context rules may systematically exclude users with uncommon devices, extensions, languages, or assistive technologies.","Users may perceive the control as coercive if ordinary reporting is less visible or less supported.","Schema or component drift may create confidently stale capsules.","The gateway may saturate human verification or downstream engineering queues.","Success metrics may reward reproducibility while overlooking user withdrawal, burden, or cases that cannot be reduced to event traces.","The service steward may become an unaccountable gatekeeper for which experiences count as investigable."]},"next_evidence_step":"Before implementation, preregister the 15-event shadow probe's eligibility, measures, and stop rules. For each event, compare the gateway capsule with the ordinary-intake artifact through blinded reproduction attempts. Record time and clarification work to a first correct reproduction, correct and incorrect reproduction, missing context, prohibited-data leakage, user edits and withdrawals, reroutes, compiler processing time, human exception work, queue depth, purge verification, and downstream triager workload. Treat the result only as evidence about this bounded pathway and configuration.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Initial sealed proposal for this cell; no within-cell comparison is applicable.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["Initial complete specification of the inferred HCI problem and catalytic intervention","Explicit reusable-facilitator cycle, selectivity boundary, capacity model, regeneration, and neutrality check","Bounded authority, safeguards, counterfactual baseline, rivals, falsifiers, and first evidence"],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}