{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/end-an-evidence-conversation-with-unknowns-not-false-closure",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0759",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "End an evidence conversation with unknowns, not false closure",
  "summary": "A clean ending should name what is still not known.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "Close by summarising the strongest observations, unresolved contradictions, missing artifacts and the next evidence request. Ask the participant or team what you misunderstood. This creates a handoff from conversation to verification.",
  "limits": [
    "Not every unknown deserves more investigation; prioritize by consequence and decision value."
  ],
  "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 interview guidance recommends open, neutral questions, asking for real stories and examples, listening carefully, and using follow-ups when meaning is unclear.",
      "source_id": "RS-8C87115E8FFA48A7",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "Neutral wording reduces one source of bias but does not make interview evidence objective or representative by itself.",
      "locator": "Do 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": [
    "A discussion produced a plausible story and the group is tempted to treat remaining gaps as minor."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Not every unknown deserves more investigation; prioritize by consequence and decision value."
  ],
  "example": "After a support interview, the team records that the failure is reproducible but the triggering configuration is still unknown and assigns a log comparison.",
  "check": "The record distinguishes what was learned from what remains open and names a concrete next evidence source.",
  "steps": [
    "The record distinguishes what was learned from what remains open and names a concrete next evidence source."
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}