UX Research & Design Specialist

Illustrative preview: this representative editorial result is not a recorded runtime session.

Start by testing a booking-context route to the policy before approving a broad navigation redesign. N3 supplies a useful existing path; N1 and N2 show that the current routes did not support independent completion in those two records. They do not establish how often the problem occurs or why.

UX packet UX-RESCHEDULE-01, revision 1
Status: COMPLETE_LOCAL for synthesis and protocol drafting; product hypotheses remain NEEDS_EVIDENCE.
Producer: UX Research & Design Specialist. Recipient: workshop product and research owners.
Scope: policy findability; no policy change, participant contact or release.
Sources: supplied N1-N3. Dates, segments and policy text: UNKNOWN.

Evidence ledger

Findings and need
F1: independent completion is not supported by N1 or N2, while N3 supplies contrary evidence to a claim that nobody can find the policy. Scope: these three supplied records only.
F2: FAQ and menu routes deserve investigation, but "the navigation is broken" is an inference unsupported by the limited notes. Supporting records: N1/N2; alternative explanation: task wording or segment differences.
Need U1: when plans change, a member needs to locate the applicable rescheduling rule before deciding what to do next, without a staff member revealing the route. No new policy, deadline or promised refund is inferred.

Current versus proposed journey
Current paths: N1 -> moderator-named menu -> policy; N2 -> FAQ -> abandonment; N3 -> booking page -> policy. Earlier steps and emotions are unknown.
Proposed hypothesis H1: expose an appropriately named policy route in the existing booking context. Preserve working routes.
Alternative H2: reorganize help navigation and labels. This could affect more tasks and carries a larger transition burden; the supplied records do not yet justify that scope.
Recommendation: investigate H1 first because it builds on the successful supplied path. If follow-up users understand the labels but still cannot reach the information from their task context, revisit organization. If the policy itself is incomprehensible, route a content problem rather than disguising it as navigation.

Ready-to-run formative study - NOT_RUN
Decision: retain the current route, add the proposed booking-context route or investigate broader organization.
Participants: actual workshop members who may need to change a booking; include both first-time and repeat bookers. A proposed first round is up to six people, split where feasible across those contexts. This is a practical qualitative starting round, not a statistically representative quota or universal sample rule. Revisit after contradictory paths or unrepresented needs.
Setup: freeze the current interface version and a separate proposed variant; supply the actual policy text and one synthetic upcoming booking. The researcher must define the correct policy destination and facts from that text before the pilot. Use separate participants across variants where feasible; otherwise counterbalance exposure and report learning effects.
Consent/data: obtain consent for the real sessions and any recording; use synthetic booking details, participant IDs and a stated retention/access policy. Stop on distress or exposure of private account data. This request does not authorize recruitment.

Neutral task
"Your plans have changed and you may not be able to attend a workshop you booked. Find the information you need to decide what to do next, and tell us what it says applies to your booking."
Follow-up after the attempt: "What did you expect to find where you looked first?" "Was any wording unclear?" "What would you do next?" Do not name a menu, page or button before recording the attempt.

Observation record
participant ID / relevant booking experience / candidate version / task start state / first route / path and backtracking / destination / policy interpretation / independent, assisted or abandoned / exact intervention and timestamp / recovery / evidence locator.
Independent success: reaches the accepted policy content and correctly explains the applicable facts without a route hint. Assistance and incorrect interpretation are recorded separately, even when the page is eventually found.

Decision rules

• If the added route supports independent findability in the recorded cases without obscuring other booking actions, retain H1 as a candidate and check unrepresented contexts before rollout.
• If people reach the policy but misinterpret it, investigate content comprehension.
• If users repeatedly seek another category or cannot understand entry labels, prepare an organization/label study rather than attributing everything to placement.
• Preserve contrary cases and severe barriers; this small formative round cannot establish population uplift or causation.

Acceptance linkage: UX-AC1 requires a source-linked finding; UX-AC2 separates assisted from independent completion; UX-AC3 evaluates policy findability and comprehension as different outcomes.
Next owner/action: the research owner supplies policy text, segment context and a versioned candidate, pilots the neutral task, then performs only separately authorized sessions. No participant study was conducted here.