research-synthesis

name	research-synthesis
description	Turn raw usability session notes, interview transcripts, or evaluation findings into structured insights with themes, quotes, and design implications.
version	1
user-invocable	true

/research-synthesis - Design Research Synthesis

Process raw session notes into structured insights that drive design decisions.

Quick Start

/research-synthesis                          → Guided questions to start synthesis
/research-synthesis [paste session notes]    → I'll extract themes and quotes
/research-synthesis [describe the study]     → I'll ask for the raw material

Output: Synthesis saved to outputs/research-synthesis/[study-type]-[topic]-[date].md Time: 15–30 minutes per study

---

Context Routing (Internal)

Before synthesizing, check:

Source	Files/Folders	What to extract
Past research	context-library/research/	Prior findings on the same topic — look for patterns or contradictions
Current brief	outputs/briefs/	What questions this research was meant to answer
Past decisions	context-library/decisions/	Decisions the research might confirm or challenge
Design principles	context-library/design-system/principles.md	Principles this research validates or strains

---

Guided Questions

1. "What type of research is this? (usability study, discovery interviews, heuristic evaluation, survey, competitive UX, expert review)"
2. "How many sessions/participants?"
3. "What were you trying to learn? (the study goals)"
4. "Paste the raw notes or transcript, or describe the key things you observed."

---

Synthesis Framework

Process research in this order:

1. Extract Observations

Pull specific, factual observations from the raw material:

• What did participants do?
• What did they say (direct quotes)?
• Where did they struggle or succeed?
• What did they expect vs. what happened?

Tag each observation: [participant #], [task], [observation type: behavior / quote / expectation / error]

2. Identify Themes

Group observations into patterns that cut across multiple participants:

• A theme needs evidence from at least 2–3 participants to be treated as a finding, not an outlier
• Name themes descriptively: "Users expect filter state to persist across sessions" not "filters"
• Note the strength of each theme: strong (4–5/5 participants), moderate (2–3/5), weak (1–2/5)

3. Write Findings

For each theme:

• Headline: One sentence stating the finding
• Evidence: 2–3 supporting quotes or observations
• Frequency: How many participants showed this? (X out of Y)
• Severity (usability studies): Critical / Serious / Minor
• Design implication: What should change, and where?

4. Surface Open Questions

What questions did the research raise that it didn't answer? What would you test next?

5. Update Context Files

Flag any findings that should update:

• context-library/design-system/component-ux/ (evidence changes a component rule)
• context-library/decisions/ (finding overturns or confirms a design decision)
• context-library/design-system/principles.md (finding reveals a gap in principles)

---

Severity Rating (Usability Studies)

Severity	Meaning
Critical	Users cannot complete the task. Blocking. Fix before launch.
Serious	Users struggle significantly. 50%+ affected. Fix in this release.
Minor	Confusion or hesitation, but task completed. Fix in next iteration.
Enhancement	Opportunity to improve satisfaction. Backlog.

---

Output Structure

# Research Synthesis: [Study Type] — [Topic]

Date: [date]
Study type: [moderated usability / unmoderated / discovery / heuristic / competitive]
Participants: [#]
Sessions: [#]
Study goals: [bullet list]

---

## Key Findings

### Finding 1: [Headline]
Strength: Strong (4/5 participants)
Severity: Serious

**Evidence:**
- "[Quote from P2: exact words]"
- "[Quote from P4: exact words]"
- P3 attempted to [observed behavior] three times before giving up.

**Design implication:**
[Specific, actionable change. Reference components or flows.]

---

### Finding 2: [Headline]
...

---

## Bright Spots

What worked well that we should preserve or expand?

---

## Open Questions

Questions this research raised but did not answer:
1.
2.

---

## Recommended Next Steps

What to do with these findings:
- [Immediate design change]: [where / what]
- [Next research question]: [study type / method]
- [Context library update]: [which file to update]

---

Quote Formatting Rules

• Use exact words from participants — never paraphrase a direct quote
• Tag participant: "[exact quote]" — P3, Task 2
• Anonymize if the research was done under NDA: "[quote]" — Participant 3
• Include context when needed: "[quote]" — P1, after viewing the filter panel for the first time

---

Quality Check Before Saving

• Findings have evidence from at least 2 participants (or outliers flagged as such)
• All direct quotes are verbatim (not paraphrased)
• Severity ratings present for usability findings
• Design implications are specific (named components, screens, or flows)
• "Bright spots" section present — not all feedback is problems
• Open questions identified for follow-up research
• Context library update flags noted where relevant