{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/separate-what-happened-what-it-meant-and-what-should-change",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0757",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Separate what happened, what it meant and what should change",
  "summary": "Evidence, meaning and action are different layers.",
  "kind": "template",
  "body": "Capture three fields separately. Observation: what was said, done or recorded. Interpretation: your current explanation. Implication: what you might test or change. This preserves traceability and makes later disagreement productive.",
  "limits": [
    "Direct quotations can still be misunderstood; context and consent rules remain important."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-question-design-and-evidence-elicitation"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-8C87115E8FFA48A7",
    "RS-49C81944D7E6105A"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "GOV.UK interview guidance recommends starting from research questions, organising topics, and preparing starter plus follow-up questions rather than improvising the whole session.",
      "source_id": "RS-8C87115E8FFA48A7",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "A discussion guide should support rather than rigidly control the conversation.",
      "locator": "Design the interview"
    },
    {
      "claim": "GOV.UK planning guidance recommends clear, actionable research objectives linked to assumptions and information needed for upcoming decisions.",
      "source_id": "RS-49C81944D7E6105A",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "Some exploratory work legitimately starts without a single immediate decision.",
      "locator": "Research objectives and assumptions"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "Notes mix observations, interpretation and recommendations so later readers cannot tell which part came from the source."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Direct quotations can still be misunderstood; context and consent rules remain important."
  ],
  "example": "Observed: user reopened the export twice. Interpretation: they may not trust completion. Next: ask what signal they expected and test status visibility.",
  "check": "Another reviewer can accept the observation while rejecting your interpretation without rewriting the record.",
  "template": "Observed: [trace/behavior/statement]. Interpreted as: [current explanation]. Next test/action: [what would reduce uncertainty].",
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-8C87115E8FFA48A7",
      "title": "Using in-depth interviews",
      "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/using-in-depth-interviews"
    },
    {
      "id": "RS-49C81944D7E6105A",
      "title": "Plan a round of user research",
      "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/plan-round-of-user-research"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-F3F88D2D9DC3D150",
      "title": "Ask questions that produce usable evidence instead of polished generalities",
      "url": "/collections/ask-questions-that-produce-usable-evidence-instead-of-polished-generalities"
    }
  ]
}