Files
confidence-engine/docs/design-evolution-log.md
T

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 Every entry represents our best understanding at that point in time and may later be superseded by a better model.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

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?