4.6 KiB
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 Every entry represents our best understanding at that point in time and may later be superseded by a better model.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: Pending visual review.
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?