Extract user needs and evidence from interview notes
Auteur: AILesson9 min de préparationTesté avec:ChatGPTRévisé: 2026-08-28
Réponse rapide
Trace behaviors, goals, constraints, and unmet needs to interview evidence without converting requests into requirements. Fournir: Interview records, Study frame, Analysis rules. Résultat attendu: An evidence table with observations, need statements, variations, confidence, contradictions, gaps, and follow-up questions.
1
Ajouter votre contexte
Votre texte reste dans ce navigateur. AILesson Prompts ne l’envoie ni à un modèle ni à un serveur.
2
Votre prompt
Les champs non remplis restent visibles sous forme d’espaces réservés, afin que vous puissiez quand même copier et modifier le prompt.
Extract user needs and evidence faithfully from the supplied interview records.
Transcripts or notes, participant IDs, timestamps, session context, prompts, corrections, artifacts, consent, and gaps:
[records]
Research questions, sample, recruitment, decision, terms, hypotheses, and excluded interpretations:
[study]
Coding unit, need format, quote permission, privacy, confidence, minimum evidence, negative cases, reviewer process, and schema:
[analysis]
Keep participant report, observed behavior, artifact evidence, moderator prompt, researcher interpretation, and product request separate. Extract recent situations, triggers, goals, current actions, alternatives, breakdowns, constraints, consequences, decision criteria, workarounds, desired progress, and counterexamples with participant and timestamp or locator. Write solution-independent need statements in context, not demographic stereotypes or feature wishes. A request such as “send reminders” is evidence of a proposed solution; infer the underlying need only as a labeled hypothesis supported by behavior and context. Preserve contradictions within and across sessions, silent or missing evidence, sample and recruitment limitations, and moderator-leading effects. Do not count repeated statements by one participant as multiple participants. For each theme give unique participants, evidence locators, supporting and opposing cases, confidence rationale, affected roles and contexts, unknowns, and next validation question. Redact unauthorized personal or customer data. End with facts safe to report, interpretations needing review, and claims the sample cannot support.
Privé par défautL’assemblage du prompt se fait localement dans votre navigateur. Évitez de placer des informations confidentielles dans un service d’IA, sauf si votre organisation l’autorise.
De l'entrée au résultat
Un exemple détaillé
Voyez comment un contexte concret transforme cette recette en résultat utilisable.
Entrée réelle
Interview records
P01 12:10: recent client review stayed Ready three days; P01 checked Teams twice and messaged project lead because no accepter was shown. 15:02 says 'email me until I answer.' P02 08:40: Ready overnight was intentional because client was in another timezone; 10:15 says more emails would be noise. P03 19:22: missed a handoff because they expected an @mention; screenshot shows owner but no accepter. Moderator at 20:00 asks 'Would automatic reminders solve that?' P03 replies 'probably.' P04 notes only, no timestamps: uses a daily queue and says delayed Ready items are usually waiting for approval. All recruited from support contacts; short quotes approved, customer names not approved.
Study frame
Question: what situations create long Ready states and what information enables action? Decision: explore email reminder, ownership cue, or neither. Four participants: two owners, one accepter, one requester; UK/Germany. Support recruitment likely overrepresents problems. Define accepter as person authorized to confirm next state. Do not infer market prevalence or feature demand.
Analysis rules
Coding unit is recent handoff instance. Need format: When (context), role needs (progress), so they can (outcome), evidenced by (behavior). Count unique participants, minimum two for cross-participant theme but retain single cases. Include negative cases. Quotes under 15 words with participant/time. Redact customers. Two researchers review interpretations independently.
Exemple de sortie
Theme 1 — identify who can accept a handoff, medium confidence, 2 unique participants
Evidence: P01 checked Teams twice and contacted a lead because no accepter appeared (12:10). P03 expected an @mention; the artifact showed an owner but no accepter (19:22). Need hypothesis: when a handoff is ready but acceptance responsibility is unclear, the acting role needs to identify the authorized accepter so they can direct the next action without searching across people. This is supported by behavior plus artifact, but roles and frequency need confirmation. Countercase: P04's delayed items usually wait for approval, which may involve known rather than missing authority.
Theme 2 — distinguish intentional waiting from a missed action, medium confidence, 2 participants with different contexts
P02 intentionally waited across timezone (08:40); P04 reported approval waiting. Need hypothesis: when a Ready state continues, roles need the reason and expected next event so they can decide whether to wait or intervene. This does not imply a reminder.
Solution requests and leading effects
P01's “email me until I answer” (15:02) is a feature suggestion, not proof that repeated email meets the underlying need. P02 is a negative case: “more emails would be noise” (10:15). P03's “probably” follows the moderator's leading reminder question (20:00) and is low-quality evidence for demand; do not count it as independent validation.
Safe facts: two participants encountered artifacts without visible accepter information; one reported intentional timezone waiting; one reported approval waiting. Interpretations require dual-researcher review. The sample cannot support prevalence, segment comparison, causal claims, or a recommendation to build reminders. Next question: across a broader consented sample, can recent instances be classified by known/unknown accepter, intentional wait, external approval, missed signal, and other causes?
Pourquoi cela fonctionne
1
Solution-independent need statements keep feature requests from prematurely defining the product answer.
2
Participant-level counting and negative cases prevent loud repetition from looking like prevalence.
Vérifier le résultat
Does every need trace to behavior and context rather than a feature request alone?
Are unique participants, locators, negative cases, and moderator effects preserved?
Are observation, interpretation, request, and unsupported prevalence clearly separate?
Utilisez-la en toute confiance
Questions fréquentes
Des réponses pratiques sur le bon moment pour utiliser cette recette, ce qu’il faut fournir et les cas où une vérification humaine reste nécessaire.
What should I prepare before using “Extract user needs and evidence from interview notes”?
For “Extract user needs and evidence from interview notes,” prepare Interview records, Study frame, and Analysis rules. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.
When is the “Extract user needs and evidence from interview notes” result not ready to use?
The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—An evidence table with observations, need statements, variations, confidence, contradictions, gaps, and follow-up questions—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.
Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Extract user needs and evidence from interview notes”?
The published test record for “Extract user needs and evidence from interview notes” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.
Votre prochaine étape : mettez l’IA à contribution
Passez de la compréhension de l'IA à l'action. Entraînez-vous à formuler des requêtes, à évaluer et à améliorer les résultats grâce à des leçons interactives pour le travail et la vie quotidienne.
ChatGPT
