OCD-Sensitive AI Interaction

1. Hypothesis

Bounded confirmation and uncertainty-tolerant language will reduce repeated checking compared with unrestricted reassurance.

2. Experiment design

Design: participatory mixed-method within-person study; baseline, active comparison, calibrated AI condition, user-controlled condition, failure or handback scenario and delayed follow-up Methods: participatory design; within-person studies; accessibility testing; longitudinal diaries; mixed-method pilots; subgroup analysis; pre-registered analysis; active comparison; subgroup and accessibility analysis; delayed retention or longitudinal follow-up; adverse-effect capture; reproducibility testing; participant debrief Independent variables: confirmation limits; language framing; uncertainty display; task stakes Dependent variables: checking frequency; distress; completion; dependency Confounders: baseline capability; prior exposure; age; motivation; context; technology access; implementation fidelity Measures: repeat-query count; completion; distress rating; reassurance loop rate Success criteria: Statistically and practically meaningful improvement; preserved or improved human skill and agency; acceptable burden; no disproportionate subgroup harm; reproducible performance; effective handback, correction and recovery. Failure conditions: No meaningful benefit; gains mask reduced understanding or skill; dependency, fatigue, stress or exclusion exceeds benefit; effects fail to transfer or persist; user control is ineffective; correction or handback fails.

3. Seed result / current evidence

DEFENSIBLE SEED RESULT — NON-EMPIRICAL. The current evidence supports OCD-Sensitive AI Interaction as a testable research proposition. Problem basis: Current approaches to ocd-sensitive ai interaction are fragmented, poorly calibrated or insufficiently measured, making it difficult to distinguish real benefit from substitution, novelty or surveillance effects. Directional expectation: If the hypothesis is supported, the intervention condition should improve checking frequency; distress; completion; dependency while avoiding material deterioration in independence, confidence calibration or delayed performance. Proposed observations: repeat-query count; completion; distress rating; reassurance loop rate. Seed data profile: Evidence Strength 10/100; Confidence 25/100; Maturity 20/100; Overall Health 36/100; Novelty 78/100; Strategic Importance 95/100. Evidence boundary: No validated results yet.; experiments 0, studies 0, participants 0. This is suitable for protocol formation and baseline comparison, not as a finding of effect.

4. Seed conclusion

DEFENSIBLE SEED CONCLUSION — PROVISIONAL. OCD-Sensitive AI Interaction warrants structured testing because the CSV identifies a defined problem, falsifiable hypothesis, measurable outcomes and relevant literature foundations. The present position is that “Bounded confirmation and uncertainty-tolerant language will reduce repeated checking compared with unrestricted reassurance.” is plausible and decision-relevant, but unvalidated. Proceed to controlled testing against the stated success and failure conditions. Confirm, narrow or reject this seed after effect sizes, uncertainty, subgroup outcomes, adverse effects, persistence and handback performance are observed.

Prior-art search performed before starting

PRIOR-ART SEED BASELINE — PARTIAL. The CSV records these literature domains: Participatory accessibility research; neurodiversity paradigm; universal design; assistive technology; condition-specific HCI studies. It also records: WHO Disability and Health — https://www.who.int/health-topics/disability; W3C WAI — https://www.w3.org/WAI/; Australian Disability Discrimination Act — https://www.legislation.gov.au/; OECD AI Principles — https://oecd.ai/. Evidence register status: “Seeded; authoritative source register refreshed; empirical evidence not yet ingested”. This is defensible as a starting prior-art inventory, but not as proof of a completed systematic search because search dates, databases, exact queries, reviewer, result counts, screening decisions, claim mapping and a replayable receipt are absent.

Prior-art material named: Existing literature: Participatory accessibility research; neurodiversity paradigm; universal design; assistive technology; condition-specific HCI studies. References: WHO Disability and Health — https://www.who.int/health-topics/disability; W3C WAI — https://www.w3.org/WAI/; Australian Disability Discrimination Act — https://www.legislation.gov.au/; OECD AI Principles — https://oecd.ai/

Critical gap / next action

Create and attach a dated prior-art search log; lock the protocol; execute the proposed study; link raw data and analysis; then replace the results and conclusion placeholders with evidence-bounded findings.