Protocol
Build the sequence before asking for the cause
Why is easier to invent than what happened next.
When it fits
- People jump directly from an outcome to a confident explanation and the intermediate events are unclear.
When to avoid it
- A timeline alone does not establish causality; it only constrains the stories that remain plausible.
Why it matters
First reconstruct trigger, steps, handoffs, decisions and the first unexpected state. Only then ask what may explain the divergence. A sequence gives causal claims something to attach to and exposes missing intervals.
Steps
- The timeline separates observed steps from later explanations and marks at least one unknown when evidence is missing.
An example
Before asking why an upload failed, reconstruct which file, validation result, user action, background job and error appeared in order.
Check your result
The timeline separates observed steps from later explanations and marks at least one unknown when evidence is missing.
Keep this limit in mind
- A timeline alone does not establish causality; it only constrains the stories that remain plausible.
Connected ideas
Use beforeAsk for the artifact that could outvote memory
Evidence and sources
Supports
GOV.UK interview guidance recommends open, neutral questions, asking for real stories and examples, listening carefully, and using follow-ups when meaning is unclear.
Neutral wording reduces one source of bias but does not make interview evidence objective or representative by itself.
Using in-depth interviews · Do the interview