{"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_user_owned_accommodation_compiler","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"User-Owned Interaction Accommodation Compiler","problem":"A person who uses particular presentation, input, timing, or notification accommodations can encounter different terminology, controls, defaults, and configuration paths in each application. Even when an application already supports a suitable interaction state, the person or an accommodation specialist must repeatedly translate the same functional intent into application-specific settings and verify that the resulting interface remains operable. The desired state is feasible, but the translation and setup barrier recurs at every unsupported application or session boundary.","actors":["Application users","Accessibility and accommodation specialists","Application product teams","Enterprise application administrators","Identity and preference-platform owners","Privacy and security reviewers","Accommodation-gateway steward"],"observable_state":"A user repeatedly searches application settings, re-enters equivalent preferences under different labels, requests help configuring an already-supported option, or begins work with incompatible defaults. Settings can be partially applied, lost between sessions, or synchronized without confirming that navigation, meaning, and task completion remain intact.","consequence":"Users spend effort restoring a workable interaction environment, may disclose functional needs repeatedly, and can encounter incomplete or conflicting configurations even though the applications contain settings capable of supporting the intended interaction.","affected_objective":"Reduce repeated translation and setup work required to reach a user-confirmed accommodated interaction state across supported applications, while preserving application semantics, baseline accessibility duties, user control, privacy, security, and an alternate manual route.","intervention":"Create a user-controlled accommodation gateway that translates a narrow profile of functional interaction intents—such as preferred text scale, motion level, caption state, focus presentation, input mode, or notification form—into application-specific settings through versioned contracts. When the user opens an eligible application, the reusable compiler verifies identity, consent, application version, supported setting mappings, conflicts, and reversibility; generates a previewable configuration diff; and applies only the changes the user confirms. It then validates basic reachability and settings persistence, releases the configured session, clears transient cross-application binding data, records bounded outcome signals, and returns ready for another session. Unsupported or ambiguous intents route to native settings or human accommodation support. The gateway cannot manufacture an interaction option the application does not provide or substitute for accessible product design.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Target transformation specification","domain_realization":"Transform an eligible application session in its ordinary starting configuration into a user-confirmed accommodated session using only settings the application already authorizes and supports."},{"archetype_element":"Activation barrier","domain_realization":"The same functional interaction intent must repeatedly be interpreted, located, translated into application-specific controls, applied, and checked for conflicts."},{"archetype_element":"Permitted pathway boundary","domain_realization":"The gateway may configure declared presentation and interaction options; it may not bypass authentication, security controls, required warnings, task semantics, or the application's baseline accessibility obligations."},{"archetype_element":"Eligible substrate","domain_realization":"A supported application version and session offering reversible settings that correspond to one or more user-authored functional intents in the pilot profile schema."},{"archetype_element":"Reusable facilitator","domain_realization":"A versioned accommodation compiler that repeatedly converts application-neutral functional intents into validated, application-specific setting changes without becoming part of the configured session."},{"archetype_element":"Facilitator–substrate interface","domain_realization":"Each application publishes a contract declaring supported intent mappings, setting preconditions, resulting state, conflicts, reversibility, validation checks, and protected invariants."},{"archetype_element":"Selectivity rule","domain_realization":"Only mappings explicitly validated for the current application version may be proposed; uncertain, conflicting, irreversible, security-sensitive, or semantically consequential changes bypass automation."},{"archetype_element":"Cofactor system","domain_realization":"The compiler requires current application contracts, authenticated user consent, reversible setting interfaces, and a user-owned functional-intent profile. These enable the reusable compiler but are not themselves the facilitator."},{"archetype_element":"Release condition","domain_realization":"The configured session is released after the user reviews the proposed diff, confirms selected changes, and the application reports successful application and reachability checks."},{"archetype_element":"Regeneration cycle","domain_realization":"After configuration or rollback, the gateway clears transient profile-to-application bindings, closes the application-setting transaction, logs only permitted outcome data, and resets for the next invocation."},{"archetype_element":"Turnover capacity","domain_realization":"Useful turnover is the number of user-confirmed accommodated sessions per compiler instance and time window, tracked with latency, queue depth, manual repair, rollback, off-target changes, and mapping age."},{"archetype_element":"Inhibition and poisoning","domain_realization":"Stale application versions, contradictory preferences, missing permissions, extensions that override settings, malformed contracts, or hidden coupling between controls can suppress or corrupt the transformation."},{"archetype_element":"Downstream recipient","domain_realization":"The user receives and operates the configured application session; gateway throughput is limited by validation, exception-support, and application-owner capacity to maintain trustworthy mappings."},{"archetype_element":"Equilibrium neutrality","domain_realization":"The compiler accelerates access to interaction states already feasible in the application. Missing captions, inaccessible controls, absent keyboard operation, or incompatible task design remain application-remediation problems rather than configuration problems."},{"archetype_element":"Accountable steward and deactivation","domain_realization":"A named accessibility-platform owner governs mapping validation, profile privacy, capacity, exception access, incident response, refresh, and retirement, while users and application owners retain immediate rollback and disable controls."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"interface_contract_design","role":"Defines each application's supported intents, setting preconditions, postconditions, protected invariants, reversibility, and version boundary.","counterfactual_removal":"Without application contracts, every translation becomes a fresh interpretation and the gateway may manipulate controls whose effects it cannot guarantee."},{"mechanism_slug":"prevalidated_transformation_template","role":"Carries forward approved intent-to-setting mappings while separating user-settable variables from locked accessibility, security, and semantic constraints.","counterfactual_removal":"Without validated templates, the compiler must improvise mappings per session and cannot distinguish a supported transformation from an untested one."},{"mechanism_slug":"workflow_automation_or_macro","role":"Acts as the reusable facilitator by resolving the mapping, producing the configuration diff, applying confirmed changes, validating the result, and logging the cycle.","counterfactual_removal":"Without reusable execution, users or specialists must locate, translate, and apply corresponding settings separately in each application."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_cofactor_system","role":"Makes authenticated consent, application contracts, reversible setting interfaces, and the user-owned intent profile explicit enabling complements.","counterfactual_removal":"Without cofactor sufficiency checks, the gateway can appear available despite lacking authority, current mappings, or a setting surface capable of completing the transformation."},{"mechanism_slug":"inhibitor_and_poison_screen","role":"Checks for stale versions, conflicting intents, overridden settings, prohibited controls, malformed contracts, and missing rollback capability before application.","counterfactual_removal":"Without screening, an incompatible application or preference combination can produce an unusable session or corrupt trust in subsequent configurations."},{"mechanism_slug":"active_site_capacity_dashboard","role":"Shows configuration queue, mapping version health, validation failures, conflicts, rollbacks, manual exceptions, and application-maintainer backlog.","counterfactual_removal":"Without capacity and degradation visibility, operators may confuse service saturation with stale or defective mappings and continue offering a failing path."},{"mechanism_slug":"catalyst_regeneration_protocol","role":"Clears transient bindings after every invocation, revalidates mappings after application changes or rollback clusters, and retires mappings that cannot be restored.","counterfactual_removal":"Without regeneration and retirement, cross-user residue and application drift can make the nominally reusable compiler progressively less selective and safe."},{"mechanism_slug":"turnover_and_selectivity_assay","role":"Compares successful, user-confirmed configurations with manual setup while counting rejected mappings, unintended changes, manual repair, rollbacks, and degradation across repeated cycles.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the assay, rapid setting application could be mistaken for useful accommodation despite incorrect, incomplete, or off-target configurations."},{"mechanism_slug":"small_safe_to_fail_probe","role":"Tests the compiler on reversible settings in sandbox applications with predeclared privacy, correctness, rollback, and stopping conditions.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a bounded comparison, mapping defects or profile leakage could affect ordinary application use before the compiler's barrier-lowering contribution is established."}],"causal_chain":["A user authors or selects a narrow functional-intent profile without supplying a diagnosis.","An eligible application session exposes its current version and accommodation contract to the gateway.","The gateway verifies user consent, authorization, mapping currency, reversibility, and the absence of conflicts or prohibited controls.","The reusable compiler converts supported intents into an application-specific configuration diff using prevalidated mappings.","The user previews the proposed changes and confirms, edits, declines, or chooses the manual route.","The application applies confirmed settings transactionally and reports the resulting state; validation checks test basic reachability and persistence without judging the user's subjective experience.","The user accepts the session or invokes immediate rollback, retaining authority over whether the configuration is suitable.","Configuration outcomes, conflicts, corrections, rollbacks, queueing, and mapping alarms update turnover, selectivity, and capacity records.","Transient profile bindings are cleared; stale or defective mappings are refreshed, quarantined, or retired before another cycle.","Matched comparison with manual configuration tests whether the gateway reduced repeated translation work without weakening accessibility, privacy, user control, or application behavior."],"baseline":"The user configures each application through its native settings, relies on operating-system preferences only where the application honors them, or asks an accessibility specialist or administrator to translate and apply the desired settings. The comparison holds application capabilities, available settings, user intent, substantive accessibility requirements, and support staffing constant.","nearest_rivals":["Operating-system or browser accessibility preferences, which provide common signals but do not guarantee application-specific interpretation, preview, conflict handling, or validated postconditions.","Per-application saved settings, which preserve a configuration after it has been manually translated but do not perform the translation across distinct application schemas.","Universal or accessible-by-default interface design, which changes the underlying application and remains necessary when a workable endpoint does not already exist.","A human accommodation specialist, who can interpret complex needs but supplies judgment and configuration labor separately for each application or exception.","A persona or centralized user profile, which represents preferences but does not execute a governed transformation into verified local settings.","A style-injection extension, which may alter presentation broadly but can bypass application contracts, semantics, security boundaries, and rollback guarantees."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The proposal tests whether a user-controlled, selective compiler can repeatedly translate functional interaction intent into already-supported application states and then reset for reuse. Its claim is bounded to reducing recurring configuration translation; it does not claim to repair inaccessible applications, infer disability, synchronize arbitrary preferences, or replace human accommodation judgment.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The user alone authorizes application of settings to their session and may inspect, decline, modify, or roll back every proposed change. Application owners authorize mappings for their software, and the accessibility-platform owner may authorize the bounded probe after privacy and security review. Privacy, security, application owners, and users retain independent disable authority.","authorized_first_step":"Run a local sandbox probe with at most 12 consenting participants, two non-sensitive test applications, and a fixed set of reversible presentation and navigation settings. Compare matched manual-configuration and compiler-assisted tasks, require preview before every application, and prevent the gateway from modifying production profiles or applications.","excluded_actions":["Collecting or inferring diagnoses, medical information, or protected-status classifications","Applying settings without contemporaneous user confirmation during the probe","Changing authentication, authorization, security warnings, data-retention controls, or substantive task meaning","Claiming that compiled settings satisfy an application's baseline accessibility obligations","Injecting uncontracted code or modifying unsupported applications","Making the gateway the only path to settings or accommodation support","Using profile or timing telemetry for employment evaluation, advertising, or unrelated personalization","Retaining transient cross-application bindings after the declared reset point","Expanding beyond the sandbox without a separate authorization decision"],"halt_rollback":"Disable the affected mapping and revert the setting transaction if the gateway exposes another user's profile, applies an unconfirmed or uncontracted change, prevents navigation or rollback, alters protected semantics, crosses an authorization boundary, or cannot clear transient binding data. Preserve only authorized incident evidence, return participants to native settings, quarantine the mapping version, and require accessibility, application-owner, privacy, and security review before reuse."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"For matched applications and intents, native platform preferences or manual configuration reach an equally suitable state with equal or less user and specialist work, while the gateway adds preview burden, mapping errors, privacy exposure, conflicts, or maintenance work.","problem_falsifier":"Observation shows that supported applications already consume the same functional preferences correctly without repeated translation, or that the applications lack the required interaction options entirely; in either case, recurring cross-application configuration translation is not the operative barrier.","intervention_falsifier":"The compiler does not reduce configuration and verification work under held-constant application capabilities, requires bespoke human repair proportional to each user-session transformation, cannot keep off-target changes within the stop boundary, or cannot reliably clear and refresh its state across repeated invocations.","risks":["A functional-intent profile may reveal sensitive information even without diagnostic labels.","Application mappings may become stale after interface or settings changes.","A technically valid configuration may still be unsuitable for the individual user.","Conflicting preferences can yield partial or unpredictable configurations.","Users may over-trust the compiled state and overlook inaccessible controls outside the mapped settings.","Application teams may treat the gateway as a substitute for fixing underlying accessibility defects.","Supported-application rules may create unequal access to the facilitated path.","Centralized mappings and identity bindings may create a privacy or security concentration point.","Rollback or validation work may saturate support capacity.","Outcome telemetry may be repurposed for surveillance or profiling."]},"next_evidence_step":"Before the sandbox probe, preregister the supported intents, application contracts, matched tasks, manual baseline, profile-data boundary, correctness rubric, reset test, and halt criteria. For each configuration cycle, record time and user actions required to reach a confirmed state, specialist assistance, mapping conflicts, incomplete or unintended changes, user edits and declines, rollbacks, task reachability, setting persistence, compiler processing time, exception work, queue depth, prohibited-data events, cross-user residue tests, and mapping performance across repeated invocations. Treat the findings only as evidence about the tested applications, settings, participants, and compiler version.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 transforms a retrospective user-observed interface breakdown into a reproducible investigation capsule; its barrier is diagnostic-context reconstruction and its recipient is a product investigator. Proposal 2 transforms an in-progress digital case at a control-transfer boundary into a verified resumption packet; its barrier is operational state reconstruction and its recipient is the next case operator. Proposal 3 instead transforms an ordinary application session into a user-confirmed accommodated interaction state; its barrier is repeated cross-application translation of functional preferences, its facilitator is an intent-to-settings compiler, and its recipient is the user operating the configured interface. It neither reports breakdowns nor summarizes work history, and it can be adopted as an accommodation middleware service independently of both earlier interventions.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":["A third problem centered on repeated interaction accommodation rather than reporting or work handoff","An independently adoptable user-controlled configuration compiler with a complete turnover and regeneration cycle","Explicit contrasts with proposals 1 and 2","Operational authority, safeguards, rivals, falsifiers, and bounded evidence"],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}