Build a useful investigation brief
Reconstruct the prompt path
For a disputed finding, transcribe the question, preceding context, pause, probe, and participant response. Note whether the participant introduced the topic or merely agreed with a label. Include any prototype or screen that made the desired path obvious.
Seek an independent contrast
Compare the prompted response with an unprompted account of a recent event, an observed task, support material, or a neutral follow-up. Use the same participant context where possible. Record agreement, contradiction, and what each method can actually establish.
Test competing readings
Ask whether politeness, recall error, recruitment incentives, or facilitator authority could explain the answer. Look for participants who resisted the prompt. If the evidence is mixed, narrow the finding to what was directly supported and name the next study.
What to carry forward
The investigation brief should preserve the prompt path, independent contrast, competing explanations, and narrowed finding. Conclude whether the evidence is usable, corroboration-dependent, or unsuitable for the decision. Do not convert agreement with an interviewer into proof that a need is widespread.
Technical background: Nielsen Norman Group 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