Aglet

Investigate Whether Discovery Is Ready to Advance

Readiness investigation asks whether the team has enough useful evidence for the decision in front of it. Revisit the questions, user contexts, constraints, and solution assumptions. Look for a path that can proceed safely with limited uncertainty, rather than forcing a binary ready or not-ready label.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Reconstruct the learning chain

    For each decision, link the user outcome, research question, observation, interpretation, and remaining uncertainty. Include evidence that changed the direction and a counterexample that limits it. Remove conclusions with no traceable source.

  2. Compare unknowns with options

    Model what would happen if the team proceeds, narrows scope, runs another round, or pauses. Identify unknowns each path tolerates and those it cannot. Test whether a reversible prototype can answer a critical question without a full build.

  3. Challenge the readiness story

    Ask whether schedule, sunk cost, stakeholder confidence, or polished artifacts are standing in for evidence. Review missing users, contradictory findings, and untested constraints. State the smallest additional observation that could change the recommendation.

What to carry forward

The investigation brief should connect decision, evidence chain, unknowns, alternatives, and tested boundaries. End with a scoped advance, another research round, or a pause with reasons. Do not call discovery complete when a critical unknown remains invisible.

Technical background: GOV.UK user research guidance.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow