# PILOT-001 — One completed handoff, not a platform rollout

**Proposal only.** No partner is committed, no user is enrolled, and the repo does not constitute a research protocol or IRB approval.

## Research question

Can a consent-based paper/digital handoff reduce dropped tasks and make cooperative next steps legible without making people register for a social network?

## Scope

- **One willing host:** to be determined by actual invitation.
- **One project:** for example, one narrow grocery supply or volunteer-coordination question.
- **One steward:** real person with agreed authority to RECEIVE or DECLINE; not a software default.
- **One round trip:** QUESTION / NEED / OFFER / BUILD → human review → named next action or explicit decline → later report of outcome → optional independent confirmation.
- **One public note:** privacy-reviewed, aggregate lessons only, if participants separately consent.

The current code implements only DRAFT, LOCAL_HOLD and HANDOFF_PREPARED. Everything after export is a **human process**, not an automated feature.

## Two-week candidate schedule

| Window | Action | Stop gate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Days 1–3 | Find an opt-in host; write scope, retention and permission rules | No host/permission → do not collect |
| Days 4–7 | Try 5–10 fictional practice cards; then optional real paper cards | Any safety/privacy concern → return to fictional only |
| Days 8–11 | One real handoff with voluntary steward acknowledgment and explicitly selected owner | Silence is unknown, not acceptance |
| Days 12–14 | Count actual observations and ask whether process helped; anonymize a public learning note | No publication without separate review |

## Basic measures (define denominators before sampling)

- Cards offered for review / cards actually **received** by consenting stewards.
- Median time to first **acknowledgment**, excluding unreceived drafts (report these separately).
- Received cards with an actual consenting next-step owner / received cards.
- Still unresolved at 7 days / received cards.
- Number of technical barriers, paper alternatives used, consent withdrawals and privacy events.
- Optional anonymous qualitative usefulness report, including why anyone declined.

No character XP, leaderboard, or participant scores. Full Measure and GrO would be **separate future experiments** behind human gates.

## Field protocol and privacy

Only invite adults or otherwise appropriately authorized participants. Never solicit student records, health records, legal cases, addresses, minors' details, identifying third-party narratives, or other sensitive content. Put only the minimum information needed on any card; use private channels for real contact details. Offer paper/phone alternatives. No one must use GitHub or AI.

The local demo discards unsaved input on tab close/reload; a JSON download is now the **holder's file**, and can persist until they delete it. There is **no built-in revocation** of exported copies. Never represent offline export as consent to broad sharing.

A real digital receiver would require a separately approved privacy notice, retention schedule, deletion process, authenticated steward roles, transport controls, threat model, access audit and incident handling; these are intentionally absent.

## Explicit gates before institution-facing research

An MSU staff conversation is not permission to use university branding, students, databases or networks. A proposed class project or study must be approved through appropriate institutional channels, and any human-subjects research determination belongs to the appropriate officials, not this repo.

## Possible deliverables after an actual trial

A completed, human-acknowledged handoff example; a list of failed and held crossings; feedback on language and accessibility; a privacy-limited public note; and a decision to **continue, revise, or stop**. Not a victory metric manufactured from downloads.