{
  "meta": {
    "generatedAt": "2026-06-03T23:19:16.661Z",
    "permalink": "/research",
    "updated": "2026-01-09T00:00:00Z"
  },
  "orientation": [
    {
      "title": "Protocols with receipts",
      "description": "Shared prompt packs and facilitation notes keep teams aligned when fielding interviews or co-design sessions.",
      "tags": [
        "Participatory methods",
        "Plain-language scripts",
        "Reusable consent"
      ]
    },
    {
      "title": "Decisions we can cite",
      "description": "Every study ties to glossary anchors and decision logs, making it easy to reference the why behind research calls.",
      "tags": [
        "Glossary-linked",
        "Decision hygiene",
        "Traceable handoffs"
      ]
    },
    {
      "title": "Signals into diagnostics",
      "description": "Focus areas flow into readiness labs so partners see risk levels, escalation paths, and facilitation options in one place.",
      "tags": [
        "Readiness labs",
        "Risk surfaced early",
        "Studio handoffs"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "bridgeArtifacts": [
    {
      "slug": "burden-taxonomy",
      "title": "Burden as a measurable governance risk",
      "type": "Framework paper + taxonomy",
      "summary": "Synthesis of burden signals, governance risk tiers, and linked instrument outputs for peer citation.",
      "tags": [
        "taxonomy",
        "instrument",
        "governance"
      ],
      "href": "/research/bridge-artifacts#burden-taxonomy"
    },
    {
      "slug": "consent-instrument",
      "title": "Consent integrity instrument pack",
      "type": "Validated instrument",
      "summary": "Prompt pack and scoring rubric for evaluating consent journeys and disclosure compliance.",
      "tags": [
        "instrument",
        "consent",
        "methods"
      ],
      "href": "/research/bridge-artifacts#consent-instrument"
    },
    {
      "slug": "maintenance-case-series",
      "title": "Maintenance stewardship case series",
      "type": "Case study series",
      "summary": "Comparable case studies capturing escalation ownership, comms cadence, and mitigation outcomes.",
      "tags": [
        "case study",
        "operations",
        "stewardship"
      ],
      "href": "/research/bridge-artifacts#maintenance-case-series"
    },
    {
      "slug": "pattern-language-review",
      "title": "Ethotechnics mechanism language review",
      "type": "Systematic review",
      "summary": "Structured review mapping mechanism adoption across policy, design, and governance programs.",
      "tags": [
        "systematic review",
        "mechanisms",
        "policy"
      ],
      "href": "/research/bridge-artifacts#pattern-language-review"
    }
  ],
  "agenda": [
    {
      "title": "Participation and consent at scale",
      "timeframe": "Q3–Q4",
      "goals": [
        "Map consent journeys for high-stakes services and identify where fatigue or confusion spikes.",
        "Prototype safeguards that let people pause automation without losing access.",
        "Ship plain-language participation guides teams can adapt to new launches."
      ],
      "glossaryRefs": [
        "consent-journey",
        "safety-valve"
      ]
    },
    {
      "title": "Operational burden and service debt",
      "timeframe": "Rolling",
      "goals": [
        "Quantify burden index inputs with community partners and support teams.",
        "Track how often maintenance windows slip and what mitigations keep people safe.",
        "Publish heuristics for appeal paths that reduce frustration."
      ],
      "glossaryRefs": [
        "burden-index",
        "stewardship-window",
        "signal-credibility"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "focusAreas": [
    {
      "slug": "governance",
      "title": "Governance",
      "description": "Decision accountability, data stewardship, and escalation paths people can understand.",
      "questions": [
        "What documentation helps non-technical partners see how choices were made?",
        "How can we expose decision logs without creating new harms?"
      ],
      "glossaryRefs": [
        "stewardship-window",
        "signal-credibility"
      ]
    },
    {
      "slug": "safeguards",
      "title": "Safeguards",
      "description": "Consent-aware defaults, appeal paths, and reversible states that reduce risk.",
      "questions": [
        "Where do people need safety valves to pause or undo automation?",
        "Which UI cues make opt-outs visible without friction?"
      ],
      "glossaryRefs": [
        "consent-journey",
        "safety-valve"
      ]
    },
    {
      "slug": "ui-patterns",
      "title": "UI patterns",
      "description": "Interface practices that foreground agency, clarity, and inclusive framing.",
      "questions": [
        "How do we explain model limitations without blame-shifting?",
        "Which interaction patterns keep people oriented in complex flows?"
      ],
      "glossaryRefs": [
        "signal-credibility"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "publications": [
    {
      "title": "Participatory consent prompts",
      "type": "protocol",
      "summary": "Field protocol and templates for testing progressive consent experiences with communities.",
      "tags": [
        "consent",
        "facilitation",
        "safeguards"
      ],
      "glossaryRefs": [
        "consent-journey"
      ],
      "href": "/assets/start-here/playbook-excerpt.pdf",
      "ctaLabel": "Download protocol",
      "structuredAbstract": {
        "question": "How do progressive consent prompts reduce fatigue and improve understanding?",
        "method": "Structured interviews plus co-design workshops using scripted prompts and consent checkpoints.",
        "sample": "8–12 participant sessions per pilot, spanning public service and healthcare contexts.",
        "findings": "Layered prompts increase recall and reduce drop-off when paired with reversible exits.",
        "limitations": "Small sample sizes and qualitative framing limit statistical generalization."
      },
      "datasets": [
        "Anonymized consent checkpoint transcripts (summary excerpts).",
        "Prompt pack template with scoring rubric."
      ],
      "ethicsNotes": [
        "Verbal consent recorded for each session.",
        "Participant identities anonymized in shared artifacts."
      ],
      "references": [
        {
          "label": "Participatory design for AI systems (introductory bibliography)",
          "href": "https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3313831.3376717"
        },
        {
          "label": "Consent in sociotechnical systems primer",
          "href": "https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580917"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "title": "Burden index calculator notes",
      "type": "report",
      "summary": "Applied findings from piloting the burden modeler across support and research teams.",
      "tags": [
        "diagnostics",
        "measurement",
        "governance"
      ],
      "glossaryRefs": [
        "burden-index",
        "signal-credibility"
      ],
      "href": "/assets/start-here/diagnostic-readout.pdf",
      "ctaLabel": "View report sample",
      "structuredAbstract": {
        "question": "Which operational signals most reliably predict sustained burden?",
        "method": "Mixed-methods pilot using burden modeler outputs plus qualitative debriefs.",
        "sample": "12 scenarios across support, operations, and research groups over two quarters.",
        "findings": "Handoff volume and escalation ambiguity correlate with the highest burden index spikes.",
        "limitations": "Internal-only pilots; broader validation needed across external partners."
      },
      "datasets": [
        "Anonymized burden index summary table (scenario-level).",
        "Mitigation playbook excerpts tied to hotspot categories."
      ],
      "ethicsNotes": [
        "Scenario names anonymized before external sharing.",
        "Consent gathered from participating teams for aggregate reporting."
      ],
      "references": [
        {
          "label": "Workload measurement in sociotechnical systems",
          "href": "https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1747045"
        },
        {
          "label": "Human factors in operational risk",
          "href": "https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315373865"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "title": "Maintenance readiness deck",
      "type": "deck",
      "summary": "Workshop slides for negotiating stewardship windows with cross-functional leads.",
      "tags": [
        "maintenance",
        "governance",
        "operations"
      ],
      "glossaryRefs": [
        "stewardship-window"
      ],
      "href": "mailto:studio@ethotechnics.org?subject=Maintenance%20readiness%20deck",
      "ctaLabel": "Request the deck",
      "structuredAbstract": {
        "question": "How do stewardship windows improve maintenance readiness?",
        "method": "Workshop facilitation with tabletop exercises and decision log reviews.",
        "sample": "6 maintenance planning cohorts across public and private sector teams.",
        "findings": "Shared stewardship calendars improve escalation clarity and reduce rollback delays.",
        "limitations": "Findings based on facilitated sessions; self-serve teams may vary."
      },
      "datasets": [
        "Stewardship window planning template.",
        "Communication cadence checklist with role mapping."
      ],
      "ethicsNotes": [
        "Facilitated sessions follow standard consent and anonymization protocols.",
        "Partner data remains confidential unless explicitly shared."
      ],
      "references": [
        {
          "label": "Incident response and maintenance operations review",
          "href": "https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372866"
        },
        {
          "label": "Escalation readiness in operations teams",
          "href": "https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300512"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "standardsTimeline": [
    {
      "period": "2024 Q4",
      "title": "Temporal rights field synthesis",
      "summary": "Collected stoppability and resignation signals from high-friction service flows to draft STD-01 clauses.",
      "standardRef": "STD-01",
      "href": "/standards/std-01-temporal-rights"
    },
    {
      "period": "2025 Q1",
      "title": "Consent journey instrumentation",
      "summary": "Measured time-to-exit and burden indicators to validate bounded duration and reversibility requirements.",
      "standardRef": "STD-01",
      "href": "/standards/std-01-temporal-rights"
    },
    {
      "period": "2025 Q3",
      "title": "Bridge artifact publication",
      "summary": "Published instrument packs and governance notes that map temporal rights to implementation playbooks.",
      "standardRef": "STD-01",
      "href": "/standards/std-01-temporal-rights"
    },
    {
      "period": "2026 Q1",
      "title": "Ratification readiness review",
      "summary": "Compiled validator outputs and research memos to finalize STD-01 for ratification.",
      "standardRef": "STD-01",
      "href": "/standards/std-01-temporal-rights"
    }
  ]
}