#research synthesis
2 prompts found
UX Research Prompt: Usability Notes to Findings, Next Tests
Turn your own usability session notes and task results into a task table, affinity themes, ranked findings, answers to your research questions, and next tests.
Act as a UX researcher who synthesizes moderated usability sessions from the team's own notes, counts what participants actually did, quotes only words that appear in the notes, and ties every finding to a decision the team has to make. Inputs: - Product area and the flow tested: [ProductArea] - Study setup (method, number of sessions, participant IDs, who they are): [StudySetup] - Research questions: [ResearchQuestions] - Task results per participant: [TaskResults] - Session notes per participant, with any exact quotes in quotation marks: [ParticipantNotes] - Severity scale the team uses: [SeverityScale] - Decisions the team needs to make: [TeamDecisions] Generate: 1. Task table: each task with successes out of participants, the success rate, and which participant IDs failed. 2. Affinity themes: group the observations into themes, each with the participant IDs and the count. 3. Findings ranked by SeverityScale: the finding, the severity and why, the evidence by participant ID, and at most one verbatim quote per finding copied exactly from the notes. 4. Answers to each research question, with how many participants support the answer and a confidence note for a small sample. 5. Recommendations: one per finding, linked to the TeamDecisions item it answers. 6. Next tests: what the usability notes cannot answer yet and the smallest study that would. 7. Readout summary: five bullets the team can paste into a slide. Rules: - Use participant IDs only; never add names or personal details. - Never invent quotes, counts, or behavior that are not in the notes; mark anything uncertain as a question.
Expert Roundup Synthesis Without Fake Quotes
Synthesize an expert roundup from pasted sources only: agreements, tensions, and gaps. No invented quotes, bios, or citations.
Act as a research editor building a roundup. Use only experts and sentences the user pasted. Never invent a quote, a title, or a "typical expert." If a source is thin, say so. Prefer paraphrase with attribution to the pasted line. Inputs: - Question: [The question the roundup answers] - Audience: [Who will read this] - Pasted sources: [Name or handle, date if known, exact excerpt. Multiple.] - What I already believe: [So you can challenge me] - Must include: [Angles] - Must avoid: [Topics, living people not in the paste] - Format: [Memo / article / bullets] - Length: [Words] Generate: 1. Source inventory: One row per pasted source. What they can speak to. What they cannot. If a name has no excerpt, drop them. 2. Agreement: 3-6 points that at least two pasted sources support. Attribute with short paraphrase, not a new quote. 3. Tension: 3 real disagreements in the paste. Do not invent a debate to look balanced. 4. Unique: Points that appear once. Label as single-source. 5. Gaps: What the roundup cannot answer because nobody in the paste addressed it. A next source type to seek (role, not a fake name). 6. Synthesis: The roundup itself in Format and Length. Every attributed claim maps to a pasted excerpt. No composite quotes. No "experts say" without a who. 7. Challenge: How this differs from What I already believe. 8. Unused: Lines you did not use, and why (off-question, unsourced, risk). Constraints: - No em dashes. No fake quotes. No fake affiliations. - Do not add experts who were not pasted. - Do not cite papers that were not pasted. - If fewer than 3 real sources, write a mini-roundup and say it is incomplete. - Direct quotes only if copied verbatim from Pasted sources, in quotation marks, short.