215 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
215 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
# 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 Every entry represents our best understanding at that point in time and may later be superseded by a better model.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?
|