ux-variations
Round 2
Coverage checkpoint
Branch: first-pick-speed
First-Pick Speed Coverage Checkpoint
Round 1 resolved the assumptions, variation axis, rejection criteria, success signal, and concept set. This checkpoint asks only whether anything material is missing before the skill writes the chunked shared context brief for five first-pick UX variation specs.
Table Of Contents
Established Inputs
Surface And Fixed Contract
The selected surface is the first visit through first valid fantasy stock pick for `first-pick-speed`.
The fixed logical substrate is `design/domain-model-draft-stonk.md` and `design/model-tree-draft-stonk.yaml`: DraftSession, StockUniverse, StockChoice, Pick, Turn, ValidationResult, TrustBoundary, DataLabel, and DraftEvent remain fixed.
Allowed Variation Dimensions
Variants may change entry route, sequencing, step granularity, search vs browse emphasis, social framing, information density, copy placement, validation presentation, first-pick success transition, and draft-board preview framing.
Variants may not change no account, no money, no prizes, no brokerage, no advice, no buy/sell/profit language, local/mock/delayed data posture, duplicate-pick prevention, or the first valid pick completion criterion.
Progression Mode
This is progression-path UX variation work, not layout-mode. The question is how a new player advances into the first pick, not only how the same page is spatially arranged.
Evaluation Method
After approval, each UX variation should route to `$ui-interview [specific-ux-variation]` for visual proposal and review before prototype buildout. Default validation asks whether a user can make a valid first pick quickly while understanding it is a game pick, recovering from search misses or duplicates, and wanting to continue to the draft board.
Approved Concept Set
Round 1 kept all five concepts as the initial concept set, which triggers chunked mode.
| Variation | Thesis | What Changes | Main Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Search-To-Pick Sprint | Fastest route for users with a stock already in mind. | Search is the dominant first control; concept and trust copy are compact and proximal to the pick action. | May under-explain the game for anxious users. |
| Recognizable Watchlist Browse | Company recognition beats ticker knowledge for many first-time players. | Curated recognizable company cards lead, with search as secondary. | May feel constrained if the desired stock is missing. |
| Fantasy Analogy Micro-Onboarding | A tiny guided explanation can reduce trading/advice anxiety before picking. | Three short steps precede the chooser: draft stocks, no money, compare equal-dollar results. | May delay first pick too much. |
| Challenge Prompt Entry | A market-take challenge creates motivation before mechanics. | Entry copy frames the pick as settling a take or answering a friend challenge. | May over-index on social payoff before solo gameplay is proven. |
| Draft Board First | Showing the board immediately makes the first pick feel like joining a game. | The chooser appears inside an active-turn board preview. | Mobile density and cognitive load may be too high. |
Decision Criteria
| Criterion | Pass Signal | Fail Signal |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | User can reach a valid first pick with minimal setup. | First pick is delayed behind account setup, long education, or excessive decisions. |
| Game comprehension | User understands the action is a fantasy-game pick, not a trade or recommendation. | UI looks like investing advice, brokerage, portfolio building, or buy/sell flow. |
| Recovery | Search misses, no ticker knowledge, duplicate picks, and unavailable choices have clear next actions. | Variant strands users on empty, taken, or confusing choices. |
| Trust boundary | No-money, no-prize, no-brokerage, no-advice, and local/mock/delayed labels are visible without feeling legalistic. | Variant hides data labels or uses buy, sell, profit, prize, or advice language. |
| Continuation pull | After first pick, the user wants to continue to the draft board. | First pick feels like a dead-end selection, not the start of a draft game. |
Coverage Gap Check
Are any decision criteria, risks, validation steps, or implementation constraints missing before I write the shared brief?
Agent confidence: medium
Recommended answer: No missing coverage. Proceed to write the shared context brief for five chunked first-pick UX variation specs using the concept set and criteria above.
No missing coverage. Proceed to write the shared context brief for five chunked first-pick UX variation specs using the confirmed concept set and decision criteria.Final Interrogation Gate
Semantic coverage: 100% if the gap check above is accepted or contains only non-blocking additions.
Compile Responses
Compile YAML after answering the gap check and gate, then paste it back with `$ux-variations first-pick-speed`.