The example provides a 45-minute agenda with an account-to-follow-up trail. E1 describes email; E2 describes some requests on paper. Select E2 to see the all-digital hypothesis it challenges and the scope question it creates. The candidate shared-view need stays provisional. These are fictional planning records, not interviews already conducted or a feature decision already approved.
Walk through a recent request
Budget five minutes for purpose, roles, and note use; ten for a recent-request walkthrough; fifteen for differences; ten for checking understanding; and five for follow-up. The total is 45 minutes, including transitions. These are original planning budgets rather than a mandated research schedule. Start with Q1: “Choose a recent material request you handled. How did it reach you?” Follow with Q2 about what happened next and who was involved, then Q3 about a request that took a different route.
Keep an attributed account separate from interpretation. A literal quote needs the respondent's actual wording; an attributed paraphrase should be labeled as a paraphrase. Record question ID, respondent code, account, source reference, interpretation, unanswered question, owner/date, and status. A respondent code organizes attribution but does not guarantee anonymity. Leave actual names, dates, permissions, and artifacts blank until arranged or obtained. Do not turn a planned screenshot request into a claim that the screenshot was inspected.
Keep the inconvenient account
The illustrative E1 from R1 says requests arrive by email. E2 from R2 says some arrive on a paper board. H1, “All requests are messaged digitally,” is challenged by E2. That does not require rejecting R1 or changing the board into a digital board. Ask which team, period, location, or request category each account concerns. Neither sample provides organization-wide frequencies or a complete workflow. Preserving both accounts is more useful than creating an unattributed consensus sentence that neither respondent actually supplied.
N1, “See incoming requests together,” is a provisional candidate need. Ask whose decision needs the view and what difficulty the separate routes create. Separate routes might serve different jobs. F1 asks which request types use each route; F2 asks what decision would benefit from a combined view. The page filters these records without deleting any account. It does not assign accepted actions, collect private research notes, or send messages. Maintain authorized notes in their native workspace and sanitize any later reading copy.
Read back what remains open
Use the final five minutes to repeat the interpretation as a question and invite correction. Confirmation of one person's account is not approval from everyone affected. Leave proposed owner and date as To confirm until actually accepted; do not silently substitute “the team” for a missing owner. When time runs out, retain the unanswered question instead of compressing several uncertain answers into agreement. Missing corroboration limits a broad process claim without making the respondent's experience false.
Finish by tracing question, account, interpretation, and next question in order. A useful output names what is known and what needs another conversation. The shared-view idea can remain a candidate while you discover whether the routes even concern the same task. Correct the scope of the summary before treating discovery as complete.
Make your own working example
Build an original discovery-meeting reading tool for a fictional workshop material-request process. Show agenda blocks 5 minutes purpose/roles, 10 recent request, 15 differences, 10 understanding check, 5 follow-up. Total 45; preserve elapsed boundaries.
Q1 asks how a recent request arrived; Q2 asks what happened next; Q3 asks about exceptions. E1/R1 says requests arrive by email. E2/R2 says some arrive on a paper board. These are illustrative accounts with no inspected artifact. H1 All requests are messaged digitally is challenged by E2; never rewrite paper into digital to manufacture agreement.
Provide All, Accounts, Follow-ups, Trace E2, and Reset buttons. Trace E2 shows E2 and F1, which asks team/period/request-type scope. F2 asks whose decision needs a combined view. N1 See incoming requests together stays provisional, not signed scope. Owner/date remain To confirm. Keep question IDs, respondent attribution, account text and follow-up together. Filtering changes only the view, not the underlying records. Do not collect private notes, invent actual interviews, send reminders, or mark a candidate need approved.
Use one self-contained HTML file with no remote dependency. Keep the initial sample, output, and labeled controls near the top. Use at least 16px text, strong contrast, visible focus, and a stacked layout at 360px without horizontal overflow. Use explicit type=button click handlers and explicit DOM selectors; do not depend on native form submission. Clear stale feedback when task inputs change. Render entered text safely. Keep practice data local to the current page; do not imply saving, sending, or production integration. Return only the finished HTML.
Clarify the next readback
Keep authorized interview notes as the source record. For a sanitized HTML summary, NOS lets you revise eligible static explanatory text visually without asking AI to regenerate the HTML. Clarify the email-versus-paper question before the next respondent reads it.