# One conservation first-use experiment

Hypothesis: a traceable observation → modeled comparison → separate review workflow helps an independent builder or steward identify a concrete next field question without losing permission boundaries.

Invite one willing builder or steward to try the exercise. Keep participation optional and count this exercise separately from any other project trial.

## Session

1. Ask consent for a short exercise and private feedback recording. No real parcel, photo, credentials or farm records needed.
2. Give the participant START_HERE and allow a 10-minute packet walkthrough. Record actual elapsed time, not the estimate.
3. Ask them to identify the breaking treatment, explain the deferral, distinguish soil unknowns from measured values, and explain publication withdrawal versus export.
4. Record the first confusing step and the specific question the workflow helped answer. Ask whether that outcome was useful to their own work.
5. If they choose to return on another day, record the new useful task. Obtain separate permission before quoting, publishing or naming them.

## Evidence and success

Primary: one independent participant completes the four explanation questions and identifies a useful next action in their own words. Secondary: a later independent return for another task, or an accepted useful contribution. No predetermined positive answer required.

A failed setup is useful feedback, not successful first use. Page views, follows, downloads, our own synthetic run, review approvals and community replies are separate signals. This experiment measures usability/usefulness; ecological outcomes and paid delivery require their own evidence.

Use `fixtures/first-use-receipt.template.json`. Keep participant identifying detail private. Retire or narrow the experiment after three willing sessions if participants cannot identify a useful outcome; address their actual friction before widening outreach.