# 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 Every entry represents our best understanding at that point in time and may later be superseded by a better model.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.

## Current Open Questions

The following are active explorations rather than decisions.

- What is the right metaphor for the product?
- Should the workspace resemble a facilitated workshop?
- How should decomposition be represented?
- What information belongs in shared understanding?
- What should the Investigation Map eventually become?
- How should wide thinking be reflected in the interface?