{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp06_four_proposal_generalization60_20260803","cell_id":"predictive_residual_processing__human_computer_interaction","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"prp-hci-command-conditioned-screen-reader-residuals","proposal_index":1,"version":0,"title":"Command-Conditioned Residual Speech for Screen Readers","problem":"During interaction with a dynamic professional web application, a screen reader may announce a long sequence of interface changes after each command. Predictable consequences of the user's own action—such as a control changing state, a panel opening, or focus moving to its declared destination—occupy the same serial auditory channel as unexpected validation failures, concurrent edits, permission changes, and unrequested focus movement. In a session exhibiting this condition, the speech queue and accessibility-event log show consequential external or anomalous changes waiting behind routine command consequences or being interrupted before the user hears them.","actors":["Screen-reader user","Screen reader and local accessibility-event mediator","Web application and its accessibility interface","Application accessibility team","Accessibility researcher or quality reviewer"],"observable_state":"For each user command, timestamped logs contain the command, predicted accessibility-tree transition, actual transition, model and application versions, speech output, interruptions, requests for full context, and protected events. The problematic state is observable when predictable command consequences repeatedly occupy the speech queue while unexpected changes are announced late, omitted after interruption, or discovered only through later navigation.","consequence":"The user can lose orientation, miss externally caused or erroneous state changes, repeat actions, or commit an action without hearing material context. Simply shortening all announcements can instead remove information required for accessibility and contestability.","affected_objective":"Preserve timely, accurate, and user-controllable awareness of consequential interface changes while reducing serial auditory attention spent on reconstructible consequences of the user's own commands.","intervention":"Create a local, user-controlled accessibility mediator that predicts the bounded accessibility-tree transition expected from each outgoing command before the application response arrives. A versioned application interaction manifest and recent accessible state define the prediction scope and uncertainty. The mediator compares the actual tree transition with the prediction, preserves direction and affected objects in a structured residual, and speaks a terse acknowledgement for a matched transition while immediately expanding unexpected changes with their expected baseline and actual result. Residual priority is weighted by observation reliability and consequence, not magnitude alone. Every residual retains command, source, timestamp, model version, and reconstruction context; the complete actual accessibility event stream remains locally available through a visible 'read full result' command. Heartbeats distinguish a matched transition from missing application output. Random and risk-stratified full-announcement replays audit what suppression would hide. Version mismatch, stale predictions, structured residual drift, reconstruction failure, user request, or any protected event switches the affected interaction to full verbosity. Model changes are proposed from reviewed residuals and do not enter live suppression automatically.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Prediction target and boundary","domain_realization":"The target is the accessibility-tree transition during a short window after a named user command, limited to application regions and command types whose expected transitions are declared and testable."},{"archetype_element":"Maintained generative model","domain_realization":"A versioned interaction-transition model combines the outgoing command, pre-command accessible state, application manifest, and uncertainty to generate the expected post-command state."},{"archetype_element":"Expected-versus-actual comparator","domain_realization":"The mediator computes a structured tree residual covering added, removed, relabeled, state-changed, and focus-moved nodes rather than reducing mismatch to a generic alert."},{"archetype_element":"Precision-weighted residual channel","domain_realization":"The speech queue carries terse confirmation plus prioritized unexpected differences; reliable small permission or focus changes can outrank large but noisy layout churn."},{"archetype_element":"Reconstruction","domain_realization":"The mediator retains expected state, residual, and actual event provenance so the full result can be reconstructed and spoken on demand."},{"archetype_element":"Synchronization and freshness","domain_realization":"Application-manifest and predictor checksums gate residual mode; elapsed-time and interaction-count validity windows force a full-state refresh."},{"archetype_element":"Learning from mismatch","domain_realization":"Reviewed residuals identify whether the transition model, application accessibility output, comparator, or protected-event boundary should change; approved revisions receive a new version."},{"archetype_element":"Independent raw audit","domain_realization":"With participant consent, a separate replay path samples complete accessibility events and full announcements without using the production suppression decision."},{"archetype_element":"Fallback and protected bypass","domain_realization":"The system restores full speech for invalid model conditions, and always fully announces protected categories such as destructive commitments, authentication or permission changes, errors, external-party changes, and user-requested context."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"efference_copy_cancellation","role":"A copy of the user's outgoing command drives a forward model of its expected accessible consequence; only unmatched interface effects receive expanded speech.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the command copy, the mediator cannot distinguish self-initiated routine change from externally caused change and becomes an ordinary anomaly filter."},{"mechanism_slug":"event_triggered_residual_reporting","role":"Structured differences crossing declared reliability-and-consequence thresholds enter the immediate speech channel, while matched results receive a short acknowledgement and heartbeat.","counterfactual_removal":"Without event-triggered reporting, predictable and unexpected transitions continue competing equally for the serial auditory channel."},{"mechanism_slug":"precision_weighted_error_gate","role":"Residuals are ranked using observation confidence, consequence class, source reliability, and current speech capacity, with protected classes outside the gate.","counterfactual_removal":"Without precision weighting, large layout noise can displace small but consequential state, permission, or focus changes."},{"mechanism_slug":"model_version_checksum_handshake","role":"Residual mode is permitted only when the application's transition manifest and the mediator's predictor identify compatible versions; every residual carries that identity.","counterfactual_removal":"Without the handshake, a well-formed residual can be interpreted against the wrong expected interface state and silently misdescribe the result."},{"mechanism_slug":"periodic_full_state_resynchronization","role":"A complete accessibility-tree snapshot periodically reanchors the predictor and is also requested after event gaps or drift signals.","counterfactual_removal":"Without full-state anchors, missed events and accumulated model mismatch can persist indefinitely."},{"mechanism_slug":"shadow_raw_channel_sampling","role":"Consented random and risk-stratified samples replay the complete event stream through a separate full-announcement path and compare it with residual-mode reconstruction.","counterfactual_removal":"Without independent raw samples, the system can evaluate only events its own predictor chose to expose and cannot measure systematic suppression."},{"mechanism_slug":"model_drift_monitoring","role":"The mediator watches residual structure, reconstruction disagreement, application changes, and prediction age to determine when the bounded model is no longer valid.","counterfactual_removal":"Without drift and staleness monitoring, gradual interface changes can be absorbed into misleading silence."},{"mechanism_slug":"raw_signal_fallback_switch","role":"User request, protected events, stale or mismatched models, missing heartbeats, excess residuals, or failed reconstruction immediately restore full announcements for the affected scope.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a tested raw fallback, model failure would leave the user inside the same filtered view that failed."},{"mechanism_slug":"prediction_error_review","role":"Accessibility reviewers inspect material misses with pre-verdict traces and authorize any change to the model, thresholds, or protected boundary.","counterfactual_removal":"Without review, live residuals could contaminate the predictor automatically and normalize application defects or harmful suppression."}],"causal_chain":["A user command supplies a time-bounded, attributable cause from which an expected accessibility-tree transition can be generated.","The mediator records the expected transition before observing the application's actual accessibility events.","A structured comparator subtracts expected node and focus changes from actual changes while preserving affected objects, direction, source, and uncertainty.","A consequence-aware gate keeps protected events in full and routes other validated residuals ahead of routine confirmations in the speech queue.","The user hears concise confirmation for reconstructible self-caused changes and fuller context for unexpected external, erroneous, or uncertain changes.","Version checks, heartbeats, full-state anchors, and on-demand reconstruction keep silence distinguishable from agreement, missing output, and model mismatch.","Independent raw samples reveal suppressed discrepancies; sustained or material misses trigger full verbosity and review.","Only reviewed evidence may revise the versioned transition model, closing the prediction-error learning loop without allowing automatic normalization of defects."],"baseline":"The baseline is the same screen reader and application announcing the full ordered accessibility-event output after every command, subject only to existing queue interruption and user verbosity settings. Evaluation retains identical tasks, application states, protected-event rules, and speech rate so residual processing is compared with full representation rather than with no accessibility support.","nearest_rivals":["Static duplicate-announcement removal, which suppresses repeated strings without predicting a command-conditioned state or supporting reconstruction and synchronization.","User-configured verbosity profiles, which remove categories globally rather than transmitting model-relative deviations under an error budget.","Priority notification queues, which reorder messages by fixed severity but do not encode expected content as a maintained model plus residual.","Progressive disclosure of interface detail, which hides complexity behind user navigation but does not compare predicted and actual transitions or learn from mismatch.","Generic anomaly alerts, which flag unusual events but need not preserve signed accessible-state residuals, matched versions, raw audits, or full-state fallback."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"The candidate is specifically a command-conditioned predictive representation loop: an outgoing user action generates a versioned expected accessible transition, the actual transition is represented as a reconstructible structured residual, and that residual governs speech priority and bounded model revision. Its contrast with the nearest rivals does not depend on claiming that the arrangement is new or better; it depends on whether all of prediction, residual transmission, reconstruction, synchronization, independent raw audit, and automatic full-speech fallback are operationally present.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The screen-reader user retains immediate authority over residual mode, verbosity, replay, and permanent opt-out. The accessibility product owner may authorize a bounded offline evaluation. A designated accessibility governance reviewer must approve protected-event definitions, thresholds, and any model version used for suppression; the application alone cannot waive them.","authorized_first_step":"Run a consented, offline replay study on recorded or scripted accessibility-event traces. The system may generate predictions and proposed speech but may not replace participants' live screen-reader output or mediate real commitments.","excluded_actions":["No deployment as the participant's sole accessibility channel during the first study.","No suppression of destructive actions, purchases or submissions, authentication events, permission or privacy changes, errors, external-party changes, legal notices, or user-requested detail.","No automatic model update from live behavior or unreviewed residuals.","No inference that silence means success without an application-output heartbeat.","No collection of raw interaction traces beyond the consented scope, retention window, and access controls.","No use of reduced announcement volume as sufficient evidence of safety or usability."],"halt_rollback":"Stop the evaluation and restore full-announcement output if a protected event is abbreviated, an actual transition cannot be reconstructed, model versions mismatch, the raw audit reveals an unbudgeted omission, a participant loses orientation or requests full speech, or privacy boundaries are exceeded. Rollback consists of disabling residual mode, preserving the relevant consented trace for review, and requiring a new approved model version before another test."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"The strongest counterevidence would be that users rely on nominal command consequences to maintain orientation, so removing their full verbal form causes more missed state changes, recovery navigation, repeated actions, or uncertainty even when residual reconstruction is technically accurate. Comparable counterevidence would be that application transitions are too variable for the prediction, synchronization, audit, and fallback costs to remain below full announcement.","problem_falsifier":"The inferred problem is falsified for the scoped application and tasks if full-output session traces and participant reports show that routine command consequences do not materially occupy the speech queue, delay consequential changes, cause interruption-related omissions, or compete with orientation needs.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention is falsified for the tested scope if preregistered offline replay and supervised task trials cannot jointly satisfy the reconstruction and protected-event completeness bounds, or if any apparent reduction in queued speech is offset by more full-context requests, orientation failures, missed changes, model-maintenance effort, or fallback operation.","risks":["A strong predictor may suppress orientation cues that users need despite their predictability.","Slow application defects or discriminatory behavior may be learned as normal if review boundaries fail.","Protected-event classification may omit an important rights-bearing or minority interaction pattern.","Prediction residuals may expose atypical behavior or sensitive content more distinctly than the full stream.","Version skew, lost events, or missing heartbeats may produce plausible but incorrect reconstructions.","Frequent residuals or fallbacks may create a more disruptive speech stream than full announcements.","Raw audit traces may capture sensitive task content unless collection and retention are minimized.","Teams may optimize announcement counts or dashboard status instead of accessibility outcomes."]},"next_evidence_step":"Pre-register and run one bounded offline replay using a small set of consented or scripted task traces from one application version. Before inspecting results, define protected-event completeness, exact-tree reconstruction tolerance, maximum delayed residual, orientation-error coding, model-maintenance accounting, and stop conditions. Compare full-announcement replay with residual-mode proposed speech on identical traces; include a held-out task sequence, injected version mismatch, missing heartbeat, unexpected focus move, external edit, and protected destructive-action event. Manually inspect every protected event and a random sample of suppressed transitions. The result may justify only a supervised live usability test within the same scope, not deployment.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Not evaluated; no prior proposal or experiment-candidate context was consulted. This candidate is characterized only by its command-conditioned accessibility-transition residual architecture.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":["Initial formulation of a screen-reader auditory-attention problem as a command-conditioned predictive residual loop."],"operational_changes":["Defined observable logs, protected bypass classes, synchronization, reconstruction, raw auditing, fallback, and a bounded offline replay."],"evidence_changes":["No external or prior-art evidence used; specified prospective falsification evidence only."],"claim_changes":["Restricted the claim to a testable structural contrast and made no claim of novelty, prevalence, demand, or effect size."]}}