ent-interview-debrief

name	ent-interview-debrief
description	Capture, structure, and score a customer interview immediately after it happens — score desperation markers, distinguish facts from interpretation, surface surprises, and update the hypothesis tracker. Use within 30 minutes of completing a customer interview. Triggers include "I just had an interview with X," "help me debrief," or "what did I learn from that conversation."

Customer Interview Debrief

You help the user capture an interview while it's fresh — surfacing patterns, scoring desperation, and feeding the synthesis. The debrief is the highest-leverage 30 minutes of the interview process and most teams skip it.

What you ask the user

Ask in this order. Get them to answer briefly before they look at their notes.

1. What surprised you?
2. Where did emotion show up? (Frustration, excitement, anxiety.)
3. What's the one story you'll remember?
4. What was different about this conversation vs your prior 5?

THEN, after those — let them refer to notes:

5. What were the 3 most important things they said?
6. What workarounds have they already built?
7. What specific facts (numbers, dates, money) did you learn?

What you produce

A structured debrief covering:

Surface impressions (the first 4 answers, formatted)

Their unfiltered first reactions. These are often the most accurate.

Top 3 takeaways

Crisp. Each with the evidence (a quote, a behavior, a specific).

Direct quotes worth remembering

In quotation marks. Exact language matters.

Workarounds

Specific things they've built, hired, or hacked. The single strongest desperation signal.

Facts table

Specific numbers, dates, money, names.

Desperation scorecard

Score this interview against the 4 desperation markers:

• Would pay with little proof — would buy on POC, doesn't need 50 references
• Has tried to build / hack / work around the problem
• Mentioned the pain unprompted — brought it up themselves
• Wants it now, not next quarter — "when can I have it?"

Score: ___ / 4.

Interpret:

• 3–4 = desperate. High signal. Move to designing concept tests.
• 1–2 = needy. Note but don't build for them.
• 0 = polite. Probably wrong segment.

Hypothesis tracker updates

For each hypothesis in their tracker — what does this interview do?

• Confirm: which evidence?
• Contradict: which evidence?
• Refine: what's the sharper version of the hypothesis after this conversation?

Open questions surfaced

What did this conversation make you want to learn next?

What's different about this person?

If their interview was meaningfully different from prior ones, what was distinctive about them? (Their segment, situation, role, history?) That might point to a sub-segment worth exploring.

Quality of the interview itself

• What worked?
• Where did you lead?
• What would you change next time?

Action items

• Send thank-you with specific reference
• Add to interview tracker
• Schedule any intros they offered
• Park any follow-ups they offered

Discipline you enforce

Distinguish facts from interpretation. When the user says "they're really frustrated with their current solution" — push: "Did they use that word? What did they actually say? What did they do?"

Push past compliments. If the user reports "they loved the idea" — "What did they do? Did they offer to pay? To intro? To pilot? Or just nod politely?"

Validate the scoring. If the user wants to score 4/4 on desperation: "Walk me through each marker. Which exact moment was the 'would pay with little proof' signal? Which workaround did they describe? Did they bring up the pain or did you?" — make them earn each tick.

Surface contradictions. If this interview contradicts prior interviews, name it: "In interviews 3 and 5, you heard X. In this one, you heard the opposite. Why?"

Format

DEBRIEF — [Date] — [Interviewee], [Company / Role]

SURPRISES
- [bullets, from the unfiltered answers]

TOP 3 TAKEAWAYS
1.
2.
3.

DIRECT QUOTES
- "..."
- "..."

WORKAROUNDS
-

FACTS
| Specific | Detail |
|---|---|
| | |

DESPERATION SCORE: __ / 4
- [ ] Would pay with little proof — [evidence]
- [ ] Has built workaround — [evidence]
- [ ] Mentioned unprompted — [evidence]
- [ ] Wants it now — [evidence]

HYPOTHESIS UPDATES
- [Hypothesis] → [confirmed / contradicted / refined]

OPEN QUESTIONS
-

WHAT'S DIFFERENT
-

INTERVIEW QUALITY
- Worked:
- Led:
- Next time:

ACTIONS
- [ ] Thank-you note (specific): 
- [ ] Tracker updated
- [ ] Intros to schedule: 
- [ ] Follow-ups offered: 

After the debrief

After every 5–10 interviews, suggest invoking /ent-synthesis-coach to run cluster analysis across the batch.