Build a useful investigation brief
Reconstruct the task path
For each relevant session, record the prompt, starting state, actions, system response, pause, recovery, and outcome. Keep prototype version and facilitation details. This makes it possible to compare the interaction rather than a compressed summary.
Compare observed explanations
Review what participants said after the task against what they did during it. Look for differences caused by terminology, prior knowledge, prototype gaps, or facilitator wording. Identify successful paths that use the same control differently and preserve those cases for later review.
Test competing causes
Change one relevant condition in a follow-up prototype or task, then compare outcomes. Consider content, layout, system feedback, access mode, and task framing. State which explanation is supported and which remains possible.
What to carry forward
The investigation brief should link session paths, prototype versions, participant explanations, counterexamples, and tested causes. End with a reproducible interaction finding or evidence request. Do not declare a universal usability defect from a single interpretation.
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