ux-variations
Round 1
Branch: first-pick-speed
First-Pick Speed UX Variation Assumptions
This round confirms the decision surface before any UX variation specs are written. The selected branch is the first activation cliff: getting a user from first visit to a valid fantasy stock pick without turning the product into trading, advice, prizes, or league management.
Table Of Contents
Resolved Context
Fixed Substrate
Flow: `design/user-flow-draft-stonk.md` names `first-pick-speed` as the first proof-priority branch.
Model: `design/model-tree-draft-stonk.yaml` is confirmed and attached to `branches[first-pick-speed].model_ref`.
Primary state transition: `not_started -> starting -> active_waiting_for_first_pick -> validating_first_pick -> first_pick_recorded`.
UX Surface
Decision: compare progression paths for the first visit through first valid stock pick.
Primary surfaces: start/concept surface, stock chooser, validation result, first-pick success transition, draft-board preview.
Default evaluation: route approved branches to `$ui-interview [specific-ux-variation]`; no prototype buildout yet.
Assumptions Manifest
Confirm, correct, or flag each assumption. Corrections here seed the next round before the concept set is finalized.
Target users and usage context [from artifact]
The first UX variants should serve a U.S. finance-curious social retail player or fantasy-sports-adjacent friend-group member using mobile web or web from a market-story, friend-link, group-chat, or college-club spark.
Parent user flow and branch scope [from spec]
The UX variation branch is bounded to `first-pick-speed`: start quick draft, search or browse recognizable stocks, make a valid first pick, and show enough draft-board continuation to prove the pick counted.
First-run moment and aha threshold [from model]
The first valuable moment is not reading the concept; it is seeing a chosen stock become a fantasy-game pick, with duplicate prevention and pick-not-trade copy visible enough to avoid trust anxiety.
Locked product boundaries [from research]
Every variation must keep no-money, no-prize, no-brokerage, no-advice, local/mock/delayed data, no accounts, and no full league management as fixed constraints. UX may vary copy placement and progression, not those boundaries.
Required variants and breadth [inferred]
Default to five sharply contrasting progression concepts, then chunk the full spec writing after the concept checkpoint because five build-grade variants are heavy.
Open UX Decisions
Which first-pick progression axis should carry the most contrast?
Agent confidence: medium
The practical default is to test all major progression axes: search-first, browse-first, concept-minimal, guided micro-steps, and challenge/invite-framed entry. That creates meaningful differences without changing the underlying domain model.
Make this a variant axis: test all major first-pick progression approaches, including search-first, browse-first, concept-minimal, guided micro-steps, and challenge/invite-framed entry.What would make a first-pick UX variant unacceptable?
Agent confidence: medium
Recommended rejection criteria: any variant that delays the first pick behind account setup or long education, looks like investing advice, hides data/mock labels, uses buy/sell/profit language, or makes ticker knowledge mandatory should fail.
Reject variants that delay first pick behind account setup or long education, look like investing advice, hide data/mock labels, use buy/sell/profit language, or require ticker knowledge.What evidence should decide whether a first-pick variant wins?
Agent confidence: medium
Recommended selection signal: users can make a valid first pick quickly, understand it is a game pick rather than a trade, recover from search misses or duplicates, and want to continue to the draft board.
Choose the variant that gets users to a valid first pick fastest while preserving game-not-trade comprehension, recoverability from search misses or duplicates, and desire to continue to the draft board.Candidate Concept Set
These are lightweight concepts for adjustment only. They are not built or committed as UX variation specs yet.
| Concept | Thesis | Workflow Difference | Major Tradeoff | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search-To-Pick Sprint | Put company/ticker search first and make the pick action immediate. | Landing collapses into a search-led chooser with concise trust copy near the pick button. | Fastest path may under-explain the fantasy frame for anxious users. | Low |
| Recognizable Watchlist Browse | Reduce ticker anxiety by starting with familiar company cards. | User picks from a curated local/mock universe before using search. | Browsing can feel slower or too curated if the desired stock is missing. | Low-medium |
| Fantasy Analogy Micro-Onboarding | Use a short guided sequence to explain game rules before the first pick. | Three compact steps: draft stocks, no money, compare equal-dollar results, then pick. | Better trust/comprehension but risks slowing activation. | Medium |
| Challenge Prompt Entry | Start from a social prompt: "settle a market take" or "challenge a friend." | The first pick is framed as answering a challenge, with share payoff foreshadowed. | Could over-index on social context before proving solo gameplay. | Medium |
| Draft Board First | Show the board and turn order immediately so the first pick feels like joining a game. | User lands inside an empty draft board with the chooser embedded in their active turn. | More spatial context, but denser and easier to make noisy on mobile. | Medium-high |
How should I adjust these UX variants before writing the final spec?
Agent confidence: medium
Recommended default: keep all five concepts for the concept checkpoint, then chunk the build-grade specs one variant per session after you confirm the set.
Keep all five concepts as the initial concept set; write the shared context brief after confirmation, then spec one variation per session in chunked mode.Coverage Check
This is not the final coverage checkpoint yet. Round 1 is meant to confirm or correct the assumptions and concept set before downstream UX specs.
Current semantic coverage: 72% - enough to propose defaults, not enough to write canonical UX variations.
Compile Responses
Compile YAML after answering the assumptions and open questions, then paste it back with `$ux-variations first-pick-speed`.