User Discovery

This skill structures the messy process of user research into actionable product decisions. It covers interview design, live capture, and synthesis — from raw notes to Opportunity Statements that feed into PRDs and strategy docs.

Core Philosophy

Listen for problems, not solutions. Listen for frequency and intensity.

Users will tell you what to build. They almost always describe solutions ("I wish you had a button for X"). Your job is to hear the problem underneath ("so you can stop doing X manually").

A great discovery process:

• Asks about the past, not the future ("Tell me about the last time..." not "Would you use...")
• Treats every user request as evidence, not instruction
• Separates signal (recurring pain, frequency, emotional intensity) from noise (one-time preference)
• Produces Opportunity Statements, not feature lists

The fatal flaw of bad discovery: Interviewing users, then building what they asked for.

When to use this skill

• Before writing a PRD (don't write specs for unvalidated problems)
• When a metric signals a problem but not the root cause
• When entering a new product area or user segment
• When validating strategic bets before committing resources
• When stakeholders disagree on what users actually want
• For recurring weekly discovery to maintain a continuous pipeline of insights

Key Principles

1. Past over future — "Tell me about the last time X happened" beats "Would you use Y?" every time.
2. Problems over solutions — If a user proposes a solution, ask "what would that let you do?" to get back to the job.
3. Frequency + intensity — An insight is only strategic if multiple users have it with emotional intensity. Single occurrences are just data points.
4. Synthesize before specifying — Don't jump from raw notes to a PRD. Synthesis creates the bridge.
5. Continuous, not project-based — Discovery shouldn't be a one-time sprint. Weekly interviews > quarterly research projects.

Workflow

Step 1: Research Brief

Before recruiting or scheduling, define:

## Research Brief

Goal: [One sentence — what decision will this research inform?]
Key questions:
  1. [Question we need to answer]
  2. [Question we need to answer]
  3. [Question we need to answer]
Time horizon: [When do we need findings?]
Method: [Interview / survey / diary study / usability test]
Sample size: [5-8 interviews for qualitative; 100+ for survey]

Recruitment criteria (screener):

Must have:
- [Criterion 1 — e.g., "Uses the product at least weekly"]
- [Criterion 2 — e.g., "Has experienced [specific pain] in the last 30 days"]

Nice to have:
- [Criterion 3]

Exclude:
- [Who to avoid — e.g., "Internal users", "Beta testers already aligned"]

Step 2: Interview Protocol

Use this 45-minute structure. Adapt — don't script.

Section 1: Context (5 min)

• "What's your role, and how does [product area] fit into your day?"
• "Walk me through a typical [relevant workflow] — what does that look like?"

Section 2: The Triggering Moment (10 min)

• "Tell me about the last time you [did the thing we're researching]."
• "What prompted it? What were you trying to accomplish?"
• "Walk me through what happened, step by step."

Section 3: Pain Identification (15 min)

• "What was the hardest part of that?"
• "What did you do when [friction point occurred]?"
• "How did you feel when [pain happened]?"
• "How often does this happen?"
• [If solution proposed]: "What would that let you do that you can't do now?"

Section 4: Current Alternatives (10 min)

• "What do you do today to [solve this]? Show me if possible."
• "What do you like about what you're using now?"
• "What's missing or frustrating about it?"
• "What would make you switch?"

Section 5: Wrap-up (5 min)

• "Is there anything about [topic] that I haven't asked about that you think is important?"
• "If you could wave a magic wand and change one thing about how you [do this job], what would it be?"
• "Who else on your team has strong opinions about this? Can I talk to them?"

Rules for the interview:

• One question at a time — never combine two questions
• 3-second silence rule — wait after every answer before speaking
• "Tell me more" is your most powerful follow-up
• Never validate their pain with "That's a great point" — stay neutral
• Record (with permission) or bring a dedicated note-taker

Step 3: Live Notes Template

Capture during the interview (or from recording immediately after):

## Interview: [First Name, Role, Company Size] — [Date]

### Context
- Role: [What they do]
- Usage: [How they use product — frequency, context]
- Key workflows: [2-3 things they do regularly]

### Quotes (exact words — critical)
> "[Exact quote that captures a pain, job, or expectation]"
> "[Another quote]"
> "[Another quote]"

### Moments of Friction (observe, not interpret)
- [Specific moment where they struggled or hesitated]
- [Another friction moment]

### Jobs-to-be-Done (extract from context)
- JTBD: "When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]"

### Pain Points (frequency + intensity)
| Pain | Frequency (daily/weekly/monthly) | Intensity (1-5) |
|---|---|---|
| [Pain 1] | [Freq] | [Int] |
| [Pain 2] | [Freq] | [Int] |

### Current Workarounds
- [What they do today to solve the pain — often a key insight]

### Opportunities (initial, unvalidated)
- [Possible opportunity this interview suggests]

Step 4: Synthesis

After 5-8 interviews, synthesize across participants:

Step 4a: Affinity Clustering
List all raw insights (one per sticky note or bullet). Group into themes. Name each theme.

Step 4b: Frequency + Intensity Matrix

High Intensity
│
│  [Rare but emotional]    [Frequent AND emotional] ← prioritize here
│
│
│  [Rare and mild]         [Frequent but mild]
│
└─────────────────────────────────────── High Frequency

Step 4c: Opportunity Statements
Convert clusters into Opportunity Statements (Teresa Torres format):

Opportunity: [Name]
Users affected: [N of N interviewed]
Evidence: [Quotes + frequency + intensity data]
Current workaround: [What they do today]
Opportunity statement: "Users struggle to [specific job] when [specific context]. This leads to [specific impact]."
Priority: High / Medium / Low [based on frequency + intensity matrix]

Step 4d: Signal vs. Noise Filter
Before promoting to Opportunity, ask:

• Did ≥3 different users mention this independently? (frequency signal)
• Did at least 1 user show emotional intensity (frustration, embarrassment, urgency)? (intensity signal)
• Does it connect to a JTBD? (strategic relevance)

If no to all three → it's noise. Document but don't act.

Step 5: Output

Save the synthesis doc:

docs/discovery/YYYY-MM-DD-[topic]-discovery-synthesis.md

This doc becomes the direct input to prd-writer (Opportunity Framing section) and product-strategy (Opportunity Tree).

---

Phase 2: Assumption Mapping + Opportunity-Solution Tree (Optional)

Use before committing a major bet to ensure the underlying assumptions are visible and testable — not hidden inside the solution.

Step 5b: Assumption Mapping

Surface and classify every assumption behind the proposed opportunity.

Assumption types:

• Desirability: Do users want this? (validated by discovery)
• Viability: Is this commercially sustainable?
• Feasibility: Can the team actually build it?
• Usability: Will users understand and complete the flow?

| Assumption | Type | Confidence | Evidence | Risk if wrong |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Users want X] | Desirability | High | 6/8 interviews | Low — well validated |
| [Users will pay $Y/mo] | Viability | Low | 0 data points | High — test before building |
| [Team can ship in Q2] | Feasibility | Medium | Eng estimate | Medium |
| [Users understand the UI] | Usability | Low | No usability test yet | High |

→ Flag every assumption with Confidence < Medium for validation before writing specs.

Step 5c: Opportunity-Solution Tree (OST)

Structure the path from discovery to experiments formally (Teresa Torres framework):

Desired Outcome (North Star metric)
├── Opportunity 1: [Validated pain — from synthesis]
│   ├── Solution A: [Specific hypothesis — not "improve X", but "add Y so users can Z"]
│   │   └── Experiment: [Smallest test to validate A — survey, prototype, shadow]
│   └── Solution B: [Alternative approach]
│       └── Experiment: [Test for B]
├── Opportunity 2: [Validated pain]
│   └── Solution C: [Hypothesis]
│       └── Experiment: [Test for C]
└── Opportunity 3: [Validated pain]
    └── Solution D: [Hypothesis]
        └── Experiment: [Test for D]

OST rules:

• Address one opportunity at a time — don't run solutions for multiple branches simultaneously
• Solutions are hypotheses, not commitments — they live and die by their experiments
• Every solution branch has a linked experiment (the smallest test that could disprove it)
• Only graduate a solution to a PRD after its experiment validates demand

---

Output Format

# Discovery Synthesis: [Topic]

**Researcher:** [Name]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Interviews:** [N conducted] / [N target]
**Key question:** [The decision this research was meant to inform]

## TL;DR
[3-4 bullets — top findings, in plain language]

## Top Opportunities (prioritized)

### Opportunity 1: [Name]
Users affected: [N / N interviewed]
Frequency: [How often this pain occurs]
Intensity: [1-5, with evidence]
Evidence quotes:
> "[Quote 1]"
> "[Quote 2]"
Current workaround: [What they do today]
Opportunity statement: [Structured statement]

### Opportunity 2: [Name]
[Same format]

### Opportunity 3: [Name]
[Same format]

## Jobs-to-be-Done Identified

| JTBD | Users | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| [JTBD 1 — structured format] | [N/N] | High/Med/Low |
| [JTBD 2] | [N/N] | High/Med/Low |

## Key Quotes (by theme)

### [Theme 1]
> "[Quote]" — [Role, company size]
> "[Quote]" — [Role, company size]

### [Theme 2]
> "[Quote]"

## What We Heard But Won't Act On *(signal vs. noise)*

| Item | Why not acting | What would change this |
|---|---|---|
| [Request or pain] | [Too rare / too low intensity / outside strategy] | [Threshold that would elevate it] |

## Recommended Next Steps

1. [Action 1 — e.g., "Write PRD for Opportunity 1 (highest priority)"]
2. [Action 2 — e.g., "Run 3 more interviews on Opportunity 2 before deciding"]
3. [Action 3]

## Raw Interview Notes
[Links to individual interview notes or append below]

Quality Checklist

Before considering discovery complete:

Research Design

• Research brief has a specific decision it will inform
• Screener criteria ensure right participants
• Sample size ≥5 for qualitative findings

Interview Quality

• Questions ask about past behavior, not hypothetical future
• Exact quotes captured (not paraphrases)
• Frequency and intensity scored for each pain

Synthesis

• Insights clustered into themes independently, before synthesis session
• Each Opportunity Statement has ≥3 confirming interviews
• Signal vs. Noise filter applied — low-signal items documented separately
• JTBDs extracted in structured format

Actionability

• Opportunities are problems, not solutions
• Output connects to product-strategy (Opportunity Tree) or prd-writer (Opportunity Framing)
• Clear recommended next steps with owners

Common Antipatterns

Antipattern 1: Asking About the Future

Symptom: "Would you use a feature that...?" "How likely are you to...?"
Why it fails: Users are terrible at predicting their own behavior. They tell you what they think sounds good.
Fix: "Tell me about the last time you had to do X. Walk me through what happened."

Antipattern 2: Building What Users Asked For

Symptom: User interview → feature list → PRD
Why it fails: Users request solutions to symptoms, not root causes.
Fix: When a user proposes a solution, ask "What would that let you do that you can't do now?" Keep asking until you hit a job.

Antipattern 3: One-Time Research Projects

Symptom: Big research sprint every 6 months, nothing in between
Why it fails: Product context changes fast. Research goes stale. Teams stop trusting the data.
Fix: 1 interview per week, every week. Teresa Torres calls this "Continuous Discovery."

Antipattern 4: Researcher Bias in Synthesis

Symptom: Synthesis session confirms what the team already believed
Fix: Write down individual insights BEFORE the group synthesis session. Force independent interpretation.

Antipattern 5: Confusing Intensity With Frequency

Symptom: One user ranted passionately, so you build for that use case
Fix: Both frequency AND intensity matter. One passionate outlier ≠ validated opportunity. Require ≥3 independent mentions.

Reference Resources

• references/interview-guide.md — Full interview guide with follow-up questions by scenario
• references/synthesis-template.md — Step-by-step synthesis worksheet for group sessions