Build a useful investigation brief
Walk a real path
Select recent cases and trace trigger, actions, decisions, waits, handoffs, recovery, and outcome. Capture where the map helped the observer and where the person used an unrepresented route. Preserve artifacts or messages that show the transition.
Compare paths by context
Review different user groups, channels, and success states. Identify stages that only exist for one context and handoffs the map has placed under the wrong owner. Ask whether an apparent emotion reflects a direct account or an observer inference.
Test missing explanations
Consider whether timing, policy, access, information, or trust explains a map mismatch. Seek a case that follows the mapped path without the friction. State which map change is supported and what needs more evidence.
What to carry forward
The investigation brief should show the mapped path, real cases, context differences, missing stages, and competing explanations. End with a revised map boundary or a specific research gap. Do not smooth materially different journeys into an average path.
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