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

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 Every entry represents our best understanding at that point in time and may later be superseded by a better model.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