{
  "schemaVersion": "1.0.0",
  "studyIdentity": {
    "studyId": "JTBD-EXAMPLE-001",
    "revision": 3,
    "status": "draft_for_review",
    "title": "Fictional team request intake switch study",
    "ownerRoleId": "research-lead",
    "reviewerRoleIds": ["product-research-reviewer", "privacy-reviewer"],
    "targetPopulationRef": "https://research.example.test/populations/team-request-coordinators",
    "evidenceCutoff": "2026-07-28",
    "reviewBy": "2026-10-28",
    "fictionalExample": true
  },
  "researchQuestion": "Under which circumstances do small-team coordinators replace an improvised request inbox with a structured intake workflow?",
  "method": {
    "approach": "qualitative_switch_interviews",
    "selectionRule": "Fictional coordinators who changed from shared inbox intake to a structured form within the previous ninety days.",
    "evidenceHandling": "Only synthetic aliases and fictional excerpts appear in this public example; no raw recordings, transcripts, contact details, or real-company facts are included.",
    "limitations": [
      "Three fictional interviews demonstrate the record shape and cannot establish a recurring real-world pattern.",
      "Retrospective accounts may omit events or compress the decision timeline.",
      "Outcome statements are qualitative hypotheses and have not been tested in a survey."
    ],
    "rawTranscriptsIncluded": false,
    "participantPiiIncluded": false,
    "representativenessClaimed": false,
    "causalityProven": false
  },
  "jobSynthesis": {
    "situation": "A small team receives important requests through a shared inbox while volume and handoffs become difficult to reconstruct.",
    "motivation": "The coordinator needs to stop rebuilding context manually before the next missed handoff damages trust.",
    "desiredProgress": "Move from uncertain, person-dependent intake to a visible request record that the team can review without repeated clarification.",
    "jobStatement": "Help me turn an ambiguous incoming request into a reviewable team commitment when inbox coordination stops being dependable.",
    "functionalDimension": "Capture enough context and ownership to route and review a request without reconstructing the thread.",
    "socialDimension": "Appear dependable to requesters and fair to teammates when explaining what will happen next.",
    "emotionalDimension": "Feel in control of commitments instead of anxious that an unseen message will become a failure.",
    "forces": {
      "pushes": [
        "Repeated clarification consumes coordination time.",
        "A missed handoff exposes that only one person understands the request state."
      ],
      "pulls": [
        "A visible record promises shared context and a clearer next step.",
        "A bounded form promises fewer follow-up messages."
      ],
      "habits": [
        "The inbox is already open and everyone knows how to send a message.",
        "Coordinators rely on personal memory to interpret incomplete requests."
      ],
      "anxieties": [
        "Requesters may abandon a form that asks too much.",
        "A new workflow may create another queue that nobody owns."
      ]
    },
    "confidence": {
      "level": "low",
      "rationale": "The three fictional accounts consistently illustrate the same push, desired progress, and adoption anxiety, but they are demonstration data only.",
      "supportingInterviewIds": ["INT-001", "INT-002", "INT-003"],
      "counterevidenceInterviewIds": [],
      "limitations": [
        "No real interview evidence has been collected.",
        "The apparent pattern has not been tested outside the fictional selection rule.",
        "The synthesis does not distinguish segments or quantify outcome importance."
      ]
    }
  },
  "interviews": [
    {
      "interviewId": "INT-001",
      "participantAlias": "Participant A",
      "interviewedAt": "2026-07-22T09:00:00.000Z",
      "qualifyingChange": "Fictionally replaced a shared request inbox with a structured intake form six weeks earlier.",
      "situation": "Requests arrived as free-form messages and the coordinator rewrote them into a private task list.",
      "motivation": "A request was acknowledged but not assigned, forcing an apology and a manual audit of the inbox.",
      "desiredProgress": "Make ownership and missing context visible before promising a delivery date.",
      "timeline": [
        {
          "sequence": 1,
          "phase": "first_thought",
          "account": "A missed handoff made the hidden coordination system visible.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-001"]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 2,
          "phase": "passive_looking",
          "account": "The coordinator saved examples of request forms but kept using the inbox.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        },
        {
          "sequence": 3,
          "phase": "active_looking",
          "account": "A second ambiguous request triggered comparison of form and workflow options.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-002"]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 4,
          "phase": "decision",
          "account": "The team chose a short form with required context and an explicit owner field.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        },
        {
          "sequence": 5,
          "phase": "use",
          "account": "The coordinator still reviews edge cases manually but no longer rewrites every request.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        }
      ],
      "forces": {
        "pushes": ["A missed handoff required a visible corrective change."],
        "pulls": ["Required context and ownership could be reviewed in one record."],
        "habits": ["The shared inbox felt faster for simple requests."],
        "anxieties": ["A longer form might discourage legitimate requests."]
      },
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-001", "QUOTE-002"]
    },
    {
      "interviewId": "INT-002",
      "participantAlias": "Participant B",
      "interviewedAt": "2026-07-24T13:00:00.000Z",
      "qualifyingChange": "Fictionally introduced structured request intake after a teammate went on leave.",
      "situation": "Request state lived in one coordinator's memory and could not be reconstructed during absence.",
      "motivation": "Temporary coverage revealed that acknowledgements, priorities, and commitments were not shared.",
      "desiredProgress": "Let another teammate understand the request and next action without asking the absent coordinator.",
      "timeline": [
        {
          "sequence": 1,
          "phase": "first_thought",
          "account": "A leave handoff exposed the cost of person-dependent context.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-003"]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 2,
          "phase": "passive_looking",
          "account": "The team added inbox labels but did not agree on their meaning.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        },
        {
          "sequence": 3,
          "phase": "active_looking",
          "account": "Coverage staff documented the questions they repeatedly had to ask.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        },
        {
          "sequence": 4,
          "phase": "decision",
          "account": "The team adopted a small required-field set and named a queue owner.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-004"]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 5,
          "phase": "use",
          "account": "Coverage improved, though exceptions still require a separate discussion.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        }
      ],
      "forces": {
        "pushes": ["Absence made private context unavailable."],
        "pulls": ["A shared record could preserve context across a handoff."],
        "habits": ["Inbox labels were familiar even when their meaning differed."],
        "anxieties": ["Nobody might take responsibility for the new queue."]
      },
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-003", "QUOTE-004"]
    },
    {
      "interviewId": "INT-003",
      "participantAlias": "Participant C",
      "interviewedAt": "2026-07-26T16:00:00.000Z",
      "qualifyingChange": "Fictionally moved recurring partner requests from email threads into structured intake.",
      "situation": "Similar requests arrived with different wording, making comparison and prioritization difficult.",
      "motivation": "The coordinator could not explain why one request moved first without rereading several threads.",
      "desiredProgress": "Compare requests using the same context while keeping exceptions visible for human review.",
      "timeline": [
        {
          "sequence": 1,
          "phase": "first_thought",
          "account": "A prioritization dispute exposed inconsistent request context.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-005"]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 2,
          "phase": "passive_looking",
          "account": "The coordinator copied recurring questions into a note.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        },
        {
          "sequence": 3,
          "phase": "active_looking",
          "account": "The note became a candidate shared intake structure.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        },
        {
          "sequence": 4,
          "phase": "decision",
          "account": "The team chose comparable fields but retained a free-text exception note.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": []
        },
        {
          "sequence": 5,
          "phase": "use",
          "account": "The common fields support review, while priority remains a separate owner decision.",
          "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-006"]
        }
      ],
      "forces": {
        "pushes": ["Inconsistent context made prioritization hard to explain."],
        "pulls": ["Comparable fields could make review more consistent."],
        "habits": ["Free-form email let requesters express unusual context quickly."],
        "anxieties": ["Standard fields might hide meaningful exceptions."]
      },
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-005", "QUOTE-006"]
    }
  ],
  "evidenceQuotes": [
    {
      "quoteId": "QUOTE-001",
      "interviewId": "INT-001",
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-22T09:14:00.000Z",
      "context": "Fictional account of the first thought after a missed handoff.",
      "quote": "I could not tell whether we had promised it or only acknowledged it.",
      "directness": "verbatim",
      "sourceReference": "https://research.example.test/evidence/quote-001",
      "publicSafe": true,
      "fictional": true
    },
    {
      "quoteId": "QUOTE-002",
      "interviewId": "INT-001",
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-22T09:31:00.000Z",
      "context": "Fictional account of anxiety during active comparison.",
      "quote": "I wanted structure, but not a form that makes every requester give up.",
      "directness": "verbatim",
      "sourceReference": "https://research.example.test/evidence/quote-002",
      "publicSafe": true,
      "fictional": true
    },
    {
      "quoteId": "QUOTE-003",
      "interviewId": "INT-002",
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-24T13:11:00.000Z",
      "context": "Fictional account of a leave handoff.",
      "quote": "The inbox was shared, but the meaning of the messages was not.",
      "directness": "verbatim",
      "sourceReference": "https://research.example.test/evidence/quote-003",
      "publicSafe": true,
      "fictional": true
    },
    {
      "quoteId": "QUOTE-004",
      "interviewId": "INT-002",
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-24T13:38:00.000Z",
      "context": "Fictional account of the decision tradeoff.",
      "quote": "We agreed to the new queue only after someone agreed to own it.",
      "directness": "verbatim",
      "sourceReference": "https://research.example.test/evidence/quote-004",
      "publicSafe": true,
      "fictional": true
    },
    {
      "quoteId": "QUOTE-005",
      "interviewId": "INT-003",
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-26T16:09:00.000Z",
      "context": "Fictional account of a prioritization dispute.",
      "quote": "I was rereading three threads just to explain why one request looked urgent.",
      "directness": "verbatim",
      "sourceReference": "https://research.example.test/evidence/quote-005",
      "publicSafe": true,
      "fictional": true
    },
    {
      "quoteId": "QUOTE-006",
      "interviewId": "INT-003",
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-26T16:43:00.000Z",
      "context": "Fictional reflection after use.",
      "quote": "The fields make requests comparable; they do not decide which one should win.",
      "directness": "verbatim",
      "sourceReference": "https://research.example.test/evidence/quote-006",
      "publicSafe": true,
      "fictional": true
    }
  ],
  "desiredOutcomes": [
    {
      "outcomeId": "OUTCOME-001",
      "dimension": "functional",
      "direction": "minimize",
      "measure": "time needed to identify missing request context",
      "context": "before the team makes a commitment",
      "statement": "Minimize the time needed to identify missing request context before the team makes a commitment.",
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-001", "QUOTE-003"],
      "confidence": "low",
      "surveyValidated": false,
      "opportunityScored": false,
      "outcomeGuaranteed": false
    },
    {
      "outcomeId": "OUTCOME-002",
      "dimension": "social",
      "direction": "increase",
      "measure": "clarity with which a coordinator can explain ownership and next steps",
      "context": "when a requester asks for status",
      "statement": "Increase the clarity with which a coordinator can explain ownership and next steps when a requester asks for status.",
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-001", "QUOTE-004"],
      "confidence": "low",
      "surveyValidated": false,
      "opportunityScored": false,
      "outcomeGuaranteed": false
    },
    {
      "outcomeId": "OUTCOME-003",
      "dimension": "emotional",
      "direction": "minimize",
      "measure": "uncertainty that an unseen message will become a missed commitment",
      "context": "during a coordinator handoff",
      "statement": "Minimize the uncertainty that an unseen message will become a missed commitment during a coordinator handoff.",
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-003", "QUOTE-005"],
      "confidence": "low",
      "surveyValidated": false,
      "opportunityScored": false,
      "outcomeGuaranteed": false
    }
  ],
  "decisionImplications": [
    {
      "implicationId": "IMPLICATION-001",
      "decisionArea": "research_follow_up",
      "proposal": "Recruit additional recent switchers and deliberate non-switchers to test the proposed forces and counterevidence.",
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-001", "QUOTE-003", "QUOTE-005"],
      "outcomeIds": ["OUTCOME-001", "OUTCOME-003"],
      "confidence": "low",
      "status": "proposal",
      "ownerRoleId": "research-lead",
      "productStrategyApproved": false,
      "roadmapCommitted": false,
      "requirementApproved": false
    },
    {
      "implicationId": "IMPLICATION-002",
      "decisionArea": "experience_hypothesis",
      "proposal": "Prototype a minimal required-context step and separately test abandonment and exception handling.",
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-002", "QUOTE-006"],
      "outcomeIds": ["OUTCOME-001"],
      "confidence": "low",
      "status": "proposal",
      "ownerRoleId": "product-research-reviewer",
      "productStrategyApproved": false,
      "roadmapCommitted": false,
      "requirementApproved": false
    },
    {
      "implicationId": "IMPLICATION-003",
      "decisionArea": "operating_model_question",
      "proposal": "Resolve who owns the queue and priority policy before treating structured intake as a complete workflow solution.",
      "evidenceQuoteIds": ["QUOTE-004", "QUOTE-006"],
      "outcomeIds": ["OUTCOME-002"],
      "confidence": "low",
      "status": "proposal",
      "ownerRoleId": "product-research-reviewer",
      "productStrategyApproved": false,
      "roadmapCommitted": false,
      "requirementApproved": false
    }
  ],
  "reviewHistory": [
    {
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-28T10:00:00.000Z",
      "reviewerRoleId": "research-lead",
      "action": "created",
      "note": "Fictional interviews synthesized; all conclusions remain low-confidence demonstrations."
    },
    {
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-28T14:00:00.000Z",
      "reviewerRoleId": "privacy-reviewer",
      "action": "boundary_reviewed",
      "note": "Confirmed that the public example contains fictional aliases and excerpts only; this is not a legal or privacy approval."
    },
    {
      "recordedAt": "2026-07-29T09:00:00.000Z",
      "reviewerRoleId": "product-research-reviewer",
      "action": "changes_requested",
      "note": "Requested non-switcher interviews and quantitative validation before any prioritization claim."
    }
  ],
  "boundaries": {
    "personaApproved": false,
    "journeyMapApproved": false,
    "useCaseApproved": false,
    "userStoryApproved": false,
    "marketResearchConcluded": false,
    "productStrategyApproved": false,
    "roadmapCommitted": false,
    "requirementsApproved": false,
    "representativenessClaimed": false,
    "causalityProven": false,
    "outcomeGuaranteed": false
  }
}