External research review by u/mxriverlynn flagged a peer-reviewed CHI 2025 study (Yagil et al., "No Evidence for LLMs Being Useful in Problem Reframing", arXiv 2503.01631) as direct counter-evidence to the human-in-the-loop application of ADHD-style reframing.

The study: Controlled study of 280 design professionals. Found no statistically significant improvement in frame novelty or usefulness when LLMs were used for problem reframing across direct, structured, and free-form integration conditions. LLM use amplified the expert-novice gap.

Why this matters: the paper's "use cases" section (architecture decisions, naming, strategy/positioning) is dominated by human-in-the-loop contexts, but the paper does not cite or address A7.

Action:

• Add a paragraph to §7 (Discussion and Limitations) explicitly acknowledging A7's counter-evidence for human-in-the-loop reframing.
• Distinguish ADHD's primary context (LLM-to-LLM subroutine at decision points inside an agent loop) from A7's measured context (designers using LLMs to reframe their own problems).
• Note honestly that the human-in-the-loop applicability of ADHD is not empirically supported and is a target for future evaluation.

This pre-empts the same critique at v1.0 from a more hostile reader.

Raised by u/mxriverlynn in adhd-application-to-han.md — a detailed external research review using Han's own /research skill.