docs(confidence-engine): checkpoint design evolution archive tranche one

2026-09-03 10:35:07 +01:00
parent 577781eff8
commit 83a66560ae
5 changed files with 1574 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,352 @@
+# Design Evolution Log
+
+A chronological record of why significant design decisions were made. This is NOT a changelog. It records the product's evolution of thinking.
+
+This document records discoveries, not decisions. Every entry represents our best understanding at that point in time and may later be superseded by a better model.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1
+
+Simple conversational investigation
+
+Question → Answer interaction.
+
+Purpose:
+Prove the reasoning loop.
+
+Learning:
+Conversation alone does not provide sufficient context during longer investigations.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2
+
+Persistent investigation notebook
+
+Added:
+
+- current understanding
+- original situation
+- investigation history
+
+Learning:
+Users need persistent context rather than remembering previous answers.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3
+
+Document workspace
+
+Created a coherent workspace with:
+
+- investigation status
+- current investigation
+- response
+- understanding
+- investigation map placeholder
+- situation
+- history
+
+Learning:
+The interface became usable but still behaved like a document rather than a workspace.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4 (Current Exploration)
+
+Facilitated Investigation Workshop
+
+Status:
+Experimental.
+
+Hypothesis:
+
+The Confidence Engine is not:
+
+- a chatbot
+- a dashboard
+- a form
+
+It is a facilitated investigation workspace.
+
+The interface should resemble the environment in which structured thinking happens.
+
+Record discoveries rather than conclusions.
+
+Leave room for future phases.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4 — Guiding Principles
+
+The Confidence Engine is a workspace, not a document.
+
+People think in multiple directions simultaneously.
+
+Useful context should be visible together.
+
+The interface should favour thinking over scrolling.
+
+The workspace should feel like a large desk or workshop rather than a narrow report.
+
+The engine facilitates thinking.
+
+The user contributes evidence.
+
+The workspace captures shared understanding.
+
+### Experiment 01 — Wider canvas
+
+Hypothesis:
+The document-like feeling is caused partly by the narrow outer container.
+
+Change:
+Increase the available desktop workspace width without rearranging any components.
+
+Result:
+Confirmed.
+
+Learning:
+Increasing the outer workspace width reduced the narrow-document feeling and made better use of large displays.
+
+Unexpected learning:
+Width alone did not create a workshop. The wider canvas exposed that the interface still behaves as a collection of independent cards, with supporting artefacts unsure how to use the available space.
+
+Decision:
+Keep the wider desktop canvas.
+
+Next question:
+Can grouping the interface into cognitive work zones make the wider canvas feel like a coherent investigation surface?
+
+### Experiment 02 — Cognitive work zones
+
+Hypothesis:
+A workspace organised around what the investigator is doing will feel more coherent than one organised around equal cards or equal columns.
+
+Result:
+Partially confirmed.
+
+Learning:
+
+The workspace feels more coherent when organised into cognitive work zones rather than a simple document stack.
+
+However, another distinction emerged that is more important than the zones themselves.
+
+The interface naturally separates into two different modes:
+
+• the active conversation between investigator and facilitator
+
+and
+
+• the shared workspace describing the current understanding.
+
+Unexpected learning:
+
+History feels incorrect when treated as reference information.
+
+History is actually the continuation of the investigator's conversation.
+
+Every response immediately becomes history.
+
+The notebook should therefore grow naturally from the Response area.
+
+The Investigation Status card currently competes with the Current Investigation card.
+
+The current question is the primary focus.
+
+Status is supporting context.
+
+Decision:
+
+Keep the cognitive-zone concept.
+
+Refine the zones around conversational flow instead of card grouping.
+
+Next question:
+Can the workspace clearly separate conversation from shared understanding?
+
+### Experiment 03 — Conversation versus Workspace
+
+Hypothesis
+
+Investigators think in two simultaneous modes.
+
+Mode 1:
+The conversation.
+
+Question
+↓
+
+Response
+↓
+
+History
+
+Mode 2:
+The shared workspace.
+
+Status
+
+Understanding
+
+Situation
+
+Map
+
+Separating these should make the interface feel more like a facilitated investigation than a collection of cards.
+
+Evaluation:
+Partially confirmed.
+
+Learning:
+
+The workspace feels more coherent when organised into cognitive zones rather than a simple document stack.
+
+However, another distinction emerged that is more important than the zones themselves.
+
+The interface naturally separates into two different modes:
+
+• the active conversation between investigator and facilitator
+
+and
+
+• the shared workspace describing the current understanding.
+
+Unexpected learning:
+
+History feels incorrect when treated as reference information.
+
+History is actually the continuation of the investigator's conversation.
+
+Every response immediately becomes history.
+
+The notebook should therefore grow naturally from the Response area.
+
+The Investigation Status card currently competes with the Current Investigation card.
+
+The current question is the primary focus.
+
+Status is supporting context.
+
+Decision:
+
+Keep the cognitive-zone concept.
+
+Refine the zones around conversational flow instead of card grouping.
+
+Next question:
+Can the workspace clearly separate conversation from shared understanding?
+
+### Experiment 04 — Facilitated Workshop Introduction
+
+Hypothesis
+
+Beginning with a facilitator-style introduction will create more confidence than presenting an empty workspace.
+
+Questions
+
+- Does the interface feel more welcoming?
+- Does reducing the visual weight of the textarea improve the first experience?
+- Does separating "starting" from "investigating" feel natural?
+- Does the transition into the investigation workspace feel meaningful?
+
+Status:
+Experimental.
+
+Result:
+Partially confirmed.
+
+Learning:
+
+The facilitator introduction reduced the intimidation of the first screen.
+
+Replacing the empty landing page with a guided introduction improved the emotional tone.
+
+However, stacking the introduction above the input still gives the introduction excessive visual prominence.
+
+Repeat users may not want to repeatedly read the same introduction.
+
+Orientation should remain available without dominating the workflow.
+
+Decision:
+
+Keep the introduction concept but change its spatial relationship to the workspace — move it from above to beside, making it optional rather than mandatory.
+
+Next question:
+Does a horizontal facilitator/workspace layout feel more natural?
+
+### Experiment 05 — Facilitator Panel and Adaptive Landing Workspace
+
+Hypothesis
+
+Placing the facilitator beside the working area will feel more like entering a facilitated workshop than stacking instructional content above the workspace.
+
+Allowing the user to dismiss the facilitator will reduce friction for returning users while preserving onboarding for new users.
+
+Questions
+
+- Does a horizontal facilitator/workspace layout feel more natural?
+- Does the user's eye move naturally from facilitator to workspace?
+- Does the workspace become the primary focus?
+- Does "Don't show again" feel preferable to automatically hiding the introduction?
+- Should the facilitator panel become an optional workspace companion rather than mandatory onboarding?
+
+Status:
+Completed.
+
+Findings:
+
+- A horizontal facilitator/workspace arrangement feels more natural than stacked onboarding.
+- The workspace becomes the visual destination rather than the introduction.
+- User-controlled dismissal is preferable to automatic hiding.
+- The facilitator feels useful but visually too passive.
+- Remaining issues are now visual hierarchy rather than layout architecture.
+
+### Experiment 06 — Focused Investigation
+
+Hypothesis
+
+The interface should gently guide attention towards the current task without hiding supporting information.
+
+Reducing competition between panels may improve concentration more than introducing additional colour or decoration.
+
+Questions
+
+- Does visual emphasis naturally guide the eye?
+- Can supporting panels become quieter without disappearing?
+- Does the investigation question become the obvious focal point?
+- Does the workspace feel calmer?
+- Are we approaching a professional investigation environment?
+
+Status:
+Closed.
+
+## 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.
+
+---