Build a useful investigation brief
Trace a recent episode
Ask the participant or record to reconstruct trigger, goal, action, obstacle, workaround, and outcome. Avoid asking whether a feature would help before understanding the current task. Capture the language people use for the consequence and the moment it matters.
Compare contexts and alternatives
Look for cases where the need is met, unmet, or absent. Test whether access, policy, timing, skill, or another task explains the same request. Compare direct observation with recalled accounts and note the limits of each evidence source.
Build the evidence chain
Connect the final need wording to episodes, counterexamples, and open questions. Explain which interpretation is strongest and what would weaken it. If the need remains ambiguous, narrow the statement rather than filling the gap with a proposed feature.
What to carry forward
The investigation brief should contain concrete episodes, context comparisons, alternative explanations, and a need statement that follows from the evidence. End with a supported need, a narrower formulation, or a named research gap. Do not claim broad demand from a small convenience sample.
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