Aglet

Prioritize Participant Gaps for Discovery Research

Research teams often discover recruitment problems after spending time on sessions. Prioritization identifies which missing voices could change the product decision and which gaps can wait. Compare evidence consequence with recruitment effort while preserving inclusion and access requirements. Recruitment quality is part of evidence quality.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Assess decision risk

    For each missing context, describe how a wrong assumption could affect usability, access, workflow, or service outcome. Give weight to groups who encounter different barriers, not merely to the largest reachable segment. Record the decision that the gap could change.

  2. Compare recruitment paths

    Consider community partners, existing users, intercepts, specialist panels, or follow-up sessions. Compare fit, lead time, screening quality, compensation constraints, and access support. Do not select a path solely because it produces the fastest calendar.

  3. Choose a coverage action

    Select a gap to fill, a recruitment owner, and a minimum evidence condition. Defer lower-risk gaps with a reason and review trigger. If the current sample cannot answer the central question, pause interpretation before adding more sessions of the same type.

What to carry forward

The priority output is a coverage queue with decision risk, missing context, recruitment path, owner, and minimum condition. Fill the gap most likely to change the decision first. Treat a convenient but narrow sample as a known limitation, not silent coverage.

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