unisono/specs/004-afraid-to-ask/research.md

Research Findings: Afraid to Ask Feature

Feature Branch: 004-afraid-to-ask
Date: October 13, 2025
Spec: ../../specs/004-afraid-to-ask/spec.md

Clarification Decisions (from /speckit.clarify)

Functional Scope - Out-of-Scope Items

• Decision: The feature will NOT handle moderation or filtering of offensive/illegal "Afraid to Ask" ideas. "Afraid to Ask" ideas will NOT influence session results beyond matching other users' "Want" or "Accept" desires. Long-term storage or analytics of "Afraid to Ask" ideas will NOT be performed.
• Rationale: Simplifies initial implementation, focuses on core privacy and matching logic. Moderation and advanced analytics are considered separate features.
• Alternatives considered: Implementing content moderation (rejected due to complexity and scope creep for initial release).

Data Volume / Scale

• Decision: No specific maximum number of "Afraid to Ask" ideas per session or per user. The input field can contain one or multiple ideas within the text.
• Rationale: Accommodates flexible user input without imposing artificial limits, relying on semantic matching to process content.
• Alternatives considered: Imposing a numerical limit (rejected to avoid constraining user expression).

Error/Empty/Loading States (Semantic Matching Service)

• Decision: If the semantic matching service is unavailable or returns an error, the UI will display a specific error message and prevent form submission.
• Rationale: Provides clear feedback to the user and prevents submission of data that cannot be processed correctly, maintaining data integrity.
• Alternatives considered: Displaying a generic error (rejected for lack of clarity), falling back to basic keyword matching (rejected for potential inaccuracy and degraded user experience).

Performance (Semantic Matching Latency)

• Decision: No specific target latency for semantic matching. The UI will display a "Harmonizing desires" placeholder during the analysis.
• Rationale: Acknowledges the variable nature of LLM processing times and prioritizes user experience through clear feedback rather than strict time limits.
• Alternatives considered: Setting a strict latency target (rejected for potential over-engineering or unrealistic expectations for LLM performance).

Compliance / Regulatory Constraints

• Decision: No specific regulatory requirements (like GDPR, HIPAA) apply beyond general data privacy best practices.
• Rationale: Simplifies compliance overhead while still ensuring responsible data handling.
• Alternatives considered: Assuming GDPR/HIPAA applicability (rejected as not directly relevant to the current feature scope).