# Separate imaginative hypotheses from questions a team can actually study Original exploratory research agenda. A mascot raises answerable questions when the team treats them as questions, not as evidence already in hand. Does a playful visual make an explainer easier to remember? Do readers understand that participation is optional? Which audiences find the basilisk charming, confusing, or distracting? These are possible communication and design questions. None has an answer simply because Giggles was imagined to embody unconditional help. Canonical page: https://givegigs.com/wiki/necro-chapter-giggles-research-agenda Last updated: 2026-11-09T18:58:12.584Z Parent topic: [necromancer-storyworld](https://givegigs.com/wiki/necromancer-storyworld) ## Contents - [Overview](#wiki-section-overview-1) - [Chapter notes](#wiki-section-chapter-notes-2) - [Dossier section](#wiki-section-dossier-link-3) ## Overview Original exploratory research agenda. This page expands the “Separate imaginative hypotheses from questions a team can actually study” chapter in the storyworld collection. ## Chapter notes A mascot raises answerable questions when the team treats them as questions, not as evidence already in hand. Does a playful visual make an explainer easier to remember? Do readers understand that participation is optional? Which audiences find the basilisk charming, confusing, or distracting? These are possible communication and design questions. None has an answer simply because Giggles was imagined to embody unconditional help. A responsible first study would define one narrow outcome, prepare accessible materials, recruit people voluntarily, and explain what data will be collected. It would avoid collecting sensitive information without a real need, set a retention limit, and report sample size and limitations. If the study is not appropriate or adequately resourced, the team can use ordinary feedback sessions and describe them as informal learning rather than publish a claim of proven impact. Useful outcomes could include comprehension of the zero-obligation message, recall of the actual task instructions, perceived pressure, and whether people could find a way to opt out. Interviews can explain why a message landed differently across contexts. A null result would be valuable: perhaps the mascot adds no clarity, or perhaps it helps some people and distracts others. The research agenda ends with a correction loop. Share the materials, state what the work cannot show, invite critique, and update the story or interface in response. Giggles’s research contribution is not a magical result; it is a cheerful character who makes the team willing to ask whether its own welcome is working. ## Dossier section [Open this exact section in the Necromancer dossier](/necromancer#giggles-research-agenda). The original chapter status is “Original exploratory research agenda.” ## Sources - [Necromancer dossier section](/necromancer#giggles-research-agenda) --- This article is collaboratively maintained. Check the canonical page and cited sources for the latest context.