3.3 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 Every entry represents our best understanding at that point in time and may later be superseded by a better model.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.
Change: Arrange existing components into three visibly related zones:
- Active work
- Shared understanding
- Reference and record
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?