From 1cf71d6ce21ed6d9c27c755af3a447d0fa5422c5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: robbond <rob@rdbsolutions.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 12:51:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] experiment: reduce initial observation input

---
 .claude/ux-guidelines.md     | 16 +++++++++++
 components/scenario-form.jsx |  4 +--
 docs/design-evolution-log.md | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/.claude/ux-guidelines.md b/.claude/ux-guidelines.md
index a2fb143..3487b78 100644
--- a/.claude/ux-guidelines.md
+++ b/.claude/ux-guidelines.md
@@ -369,3 +369,19 @@ Hierarchy flows from strongest to quietest:
 4. Reference material (available, low priority)
 
 The workspace should feel like an active desk — the work in progress is prominent, supporting tools are within reach but not shouting for attention.
+
+## Input Expectations
+
+Input size communicates expected effort.
+
+Do not visually ask for more information than the engine currently needs.
+
+The initial situation is a starting observation, not a completed report.
+
+The engine should gather detail progressively through justified questions.
+
+Short inputs should feel valid.
+
+Users may still paste longer content when necessary.
+
+Meaning and state must never depend on colour alone.
diff --git a/components/scenario-form.jsx b/components/scenario-form.jsx
index e609d56..e4cc43e 100644
--- a/components/scenario-form.jsx
+++ b/components/scenario-form.jsx
@@ -433,8 +433,8 @@ export default function ScenarioForm() {
                 ref={textareaRef}
                 value={scenario}
                 onChange={(e) => setScenario(e.target.value)}
-                placeholder="Describe the scenario you want analysed..."
-                rows={6}
+                placeholder="What have you noticed?"
+                rows={4}
                 className="w-full rounded-lg border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-sm focus:border-gray-500 focus:outline-none focus:ring-2 focus:ring-gray-400 mb-3"
               />
               <div className="flex items-center justify-between">
diff --git a/docs/design-evolution-log.md b/docs/design-evolution-log.md
index 50d56d9..9a4659f 100644
--- a/docs/design-evolution-log.md
+++ b/docs/design-evolution-log.md
@@ -321,9 +321,57 @@ Questions
 - Are we approaching a professional investigation environment?
 
 Status:
-Experimental.
+Closed.
 
-No conclusions.
+## Result
+
+Partially confirmed.
+
+## What did we learn?
+
+- Stronger visual hierarchy can direct attention without rearranging the interface.
+- The facilitator briefing became easier to distinguish.
+- Colour and tint improved separation only modestly.
+- Meaning must not depend on colour.
+- Areas and intent should remain distinguishable through structure, spacing, typography, borders, shape and placement.
+- The initial textarea still implies that the user should provide a detailed report.
+- The size of an input communicates the amount of information expected.
+
+## Decision
+
+Retain the useful hierarchy refinements provisionally.
+
+Do not increase reliance on colour.
+
+Defer dark mode and broader palette work.
+
+The next experiment should test whether a smaller starting input better communicates that the user only needs to provide an initial observation.
+
+Do not rewrite previous experiments.
+
+---
+
+### Experiment 07 — Lightweight Starting Observation
+
+#### Hypothesis
+
+A smaller initial input will make beginning an investigation feel easier and will communicate that the engine needs only a concise observation rather than a complete analysis.
+
+#### Questions
+
+- Does the input feel like a conversation starter rather than a report form?
+- Is three to four visible lines sufficient?
+- Does the facilitator panel and input area feel better balanced?
+- Does the user understand that further detail will be gathered through questions?
+- Does reducing the input height make the Analyse action easier to notice?
+
+#### Evaluation
+
+Pending visual review.
+
+#### Status
+
+Experimental.
 
 ---