asb-interview-report

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Interview Report: What You Know, What You Think

访谈报告：已知信息与待验证观点

A round of interviews ends and the learning scatters: a hypothesis file only its author can decode, debriefs nobody rereads, teammates asking "so what did we actually find?" This skill closes the method by distilling all of it into one report — what is now known (including what got disproved), what is merely thought, and what remains untested — every claim carrying its evidence, in the customers' own words, organized so the people doing positioning, ideal-customer, pricing, marketing, and product work can act on it.

一轮访谈结束后，所得的经验知识分散各处：只有作者能看懂的假设文件、无人再翻阅的复盘文档、队友们不断询问“我们到底有什么发现？”。本技能通过将所有内容提炼为一份报告，完成整个访谈方法的闭环——报告中明确区分当前已确认的信息（包括被推翻的内容）、仅为推测的观点，以及仍未验证的内容，每一项主张都附带客户原话作为证据，结构清晰，便于负责定位、理想客户定义、定价、营销和产品工作的人员据此采取行动。

The mental model

核心思维模型

The report is the bridge from evidence to action

报告是连接证据与行动的桥梁

The interview method runs goals → hypotheses → questions → interviews → learning. Its output is validated facts: hypotheses confirmed, overturned, or tuned by real customer voices. Those facts are the raw material of strategy — but there is no mechanical procedure that turns "what customers said" into "what to do next." Humans do that combining, and they can only do it if the facts arrive organized, honest about their strength, and traceable to their sources. That package is this report. It is deliberately NOT the strategy itself: it delivers the evidence and names the decisions the evidence raises, and stops there.

访谈方法遵循目标→假设→问题→访谈→经验总结的流程，其输出是经过验证的事实：假设被证实、推翻或根据真实客户反馈调整。这些事实是战略制定的原材料——但并没有一套机械流程能直接将“客户所说的内容”转化为“下一步行动”。这一整合过程需要人工完成，而只有当事实呈现得条理清晰、如实反映其可信度且可追溯来源时，人工才能有效完成整合。这份报告就是这样一个载体。它刻意不直接给出战略：仅提供证据，并指出证据引发的决策点，到此为止。

Two readers, one document

一份文档，两类读者

The report serves both at once:

The human skimmer reads only the top. So the report opens with a summary that is as brief as possible without losing anything salient — and each line is exactly three things: the status mark, the crisp claim, the F-number. Nothing else. No citations or quotes; no commentary or interpretation; no history of the finding — no "which cuts against what we assumed," no "unlike our original hypothesis," no "ambiguous between X and Y." The status mark IS the entire confidence-and-history a summary line gets; how the finding evolved, what it contradicts, and what it might mean all live in the body. Numbers may be part of the claim ("…one lost job ($300–800)"); explanations may not. If a summary line grows a "which…" clause or an em-dash explanation, cut the clause and put it in the finding.
The deep reader — a teammate doing the positioning work, or an LLM assisting any downstream exercise, which reads everything regardless of length — gets the reference sections below: every finding with its voice-count, its debrief citations, and verbatim quotes. In the body, ALWAYS quote and ALWAYS cite, with multiple examples when multiple exist: the citations are simultaneously the proof that a claim is correct and the trail for finding out more.

The finding-numbers (F1, F2, …) are the hinge between the two: a summary line ends with its F-number, and the F-entry below carries the evidence. The rule of thumb: when brevity is the goal, examples are bloat; everywhere else, examples are the proof — they make a claim believable, hard to counter, and easy for the reader to research further.

报告同时服务于两类读者：

快速浏览者仅阅读顶部内容。因此报告开头是尽可能简洁且不遗漏关键信息的摘要——每一行内容严格包含三部分：状态标记、简洁主张、F编号，无其他内容。无需引用或原话；无需评论或解读；无需发现过程的描述——比如“这与我们之前的假设相悖”“不同于最初的假设”“在X和Y之间模棱两可”这类内容都不应出现。状态标记已涵盖摘要行所需的全部可信度与背景信息；发现的演变过程、它所反驳的内容以及潜在含义都放在正文部分。主张中可包含数字（如“……损失一笔订单（300-800美元）”）；但不能包含解释性内容。如果摘要行出现了“这一情况……”从句或破折号后的解释，需删除该从句并将内容移至对应的调研结论中。
深度阅读者——负责定位工作的队友，或协助后续工作的LLM（无论内容长短都会通读）——会查看下方的参考部分：每条调研结论都附带提及的客户数量、复盘文档引用以及原话。在正文中，必须引用原话并标注来源，当存在多个案例时需提供多个示例：引用既是主张正确性的证明，也是进一步深入了解的线索。

调研结论编号（F1、F2……）是连接两类读者的枢纽：摘要行以F编号结尾，对应的F条目则包含详细证据。经验法则：当追求简洁时，示例是冗余内容；在其他所有场景下，示例就是证明——它让主张更可信、难以反驳，也便于读者进一步调研。

Epistemic honesty is the product

认知诚实是核心要求

The single way this report fails is by stating things more strongly than the evidence supports — then every decision built on it inherits the inflation. So every finding wears its status:

✓ Validated — a clear pattern across several conversations confirmed it. Knowledge.
✗ Disproved — a clear pattern overturned it. Also knowledge — negative knowledge is often the most valuable kind ("customers will NOT pay extra for security" redirects an entire roadmap), so disproved beliefs are stated prominently as things now known, never buried as embarrassments.
~ Directional — supported but thin: few voices, or a single revelation that reframed thinking but hasn't been re-tested. Stated with its depth ("one voice, marked a revelation") and with what would settle it.
👀 Watch — heard once or twice, noticed, parked. Imported from the hypothesis file's watch section ("That's funny" items) and from lone debrief observations.
? Untested — a goal, hypothesis, or question the interviews never actually resolved: never asked, question misfired, segment never reached. Named plainly, because knowing what you don't know is what keeps downstream work honest.

Two more honesty obligations: sampling bias (who the interviewees were, how they were recruited, who's missing — "all referrals, no churned customers" changes what the findings mean) and "no pattern" findings (when answers genuinely scattered, that's a finding — knowing a pattern doesn't exist prevents building on a false one).

And state strength in numbers, never probability words. "Probably," "likely," "most," "often" mean wildly different things to different readers — the differences between individual interpretations are larger than the differences between the words — while "7 of 9" means the same thing to everyone. Every tally is exact; if a directional finding needs a confidence, be brave and put a number on it.

这份报告失败的唯一方式是陈述内容的可信度高于证据所能支撑的程度——基于此做出的每一项决策都会继承这种夸大的问题。因此每条调研结论都明确标记其状态：

✓ 已验证——在多次对话中呈现清晰模式，得到确认。属于确定的知识。
✗ 已推翻——清晰的模式推翻了原有假设。这同样是确定的知识——否定性知识往往是最有价值的（比如“客户不会为安全功能额外付费”能彻底改变整个路线图），因此被推翻的观点应作为已确认的信息突出呈现，绝不能作为尴尬内容被隐藏。
~ 方向性——有支持但证据不足：提及的客户数量少，或仅出现一次能重构思路但未经过再次验证的新发现。需说明其证据深度（如“一位客户提及，属于颠覆性发现”）以及需要哪些证据才能确认。
👀 待观察——被提及一两次，已被注意但暂时搁置。来自假设文件的待观察部分（“有意思”的条目）以及单独的复盘观察结果。
? 未测试——访谈中未实际解决的目标、假设或问题：从未被问及、问题设计失误、未触及对应细分群体。需明确说明，因为了解自己未知的内容能让后续工作保持严谨。

还有两项认知诚实的要求：抽样偏差（访谈对象是谁、如何招募、遗漏了哪些群体——比如“均为推荐客户，无流失客户”会影响结论的有效性）以及**“无模式”结论**（当答案确实分散时，这本身就是一项结论——了解不存在模式能避免基于错误假设开展工作）。

并且要用数字而非概率词汇来描述可信度。“可能”“大概率”“大多数”“经常”对不同读者来说含义差异极大——不同人对这些词的理解差异远大于词汇本身的差异；而“9人中有7人”对所有人来说含义一致。所有统计都必须精确；如果方向性结论需要标注可信度，请大胆给出具体数字。

Splits are choices, never averages

拆分是选择，而非平均

When the evidence splits — five voices at $40, five at $300 — the report never averages it into a mid-point nobody asked for. "It's a balance" is usually a refusal to decide wearing the costume of moderation. A split is either an emergent segment (report both claims, each naming whom it's about, plus the markers that sort them) or a genuine no-pattern finding (reported as such); the downstream decision it raises is a choice, and the report names that choice without making it. Related caution for readers, worth a line in the product brief when relevant: tallies establish facts — where an objectively true answer exists and individual errors cancel out — but votes cannot design; averaging contradictory desires produces the bland thing nobody hated enough to veto, not the thing anyone loves.

当证据出现分歧时——比如5位客户愿意支付40美元，5位愿意支付300美元——报告绝不能将其平均为一个无人认可的中间值。“寻求平衡”通常是逃避决策的借口。分歧要么是新兴细分群体（需分别报告两项主张，每项都说明适用群体，以及区分群体的标志），要么是真正的无模式结论（如实报告）；证据引发的后续决策是一项选择，报告只需指出该选择，无需替读者做出决定。相关的读者注意事项：在产品简报中若相关，需明确说明：统计数字用于确立事实——即存在客观真实答案，个体误差可相互抵消——但投票不能用于设计；将矛盾的需求平均化只会产出没人讨厌但也没人喜欢的平庸产品。

What the downstream work needs

后续工作所需的内容

Each per-area brief marshals findings for a specific exercise, in that exercise's own terms:

Ideal customer: keystone candidates (what the best interviewees valued extremely — enough to drive a purchase by itself), deal-breaker candidates (what disqualified the product regardless of fit), the inciting-event stories actually heard (the specific trigger moments that turned someone into an active buyer — quoted, because these are collected precisely by interviewing), sorting markers (behavioral and attitudinal characteristics that separate best-fit from poor-fit — never mere demographics), and best-vs-worst differentials.
Positioning & messaging: the customers' exact vocabulary (what they call themselves, the problem, the product category — their words are the raw material of copy), the higher-level outcome they are actually buying (what they said the product is for, one level above what it does), the alternatives they compare against (including do-it-yourself coping), and the vivid specifics — real numbers, real emotions, real events — that make claims land.
Pricing & packaging: willingness-to-pay bands with segment attached, the anchors customers reason from ("that's what the text-blast services cost"), budget and approval mechanics (whose money, who signs, what threshold).
Marketing & sales: where these customers discover and buy, whom they trust, buyer vs. user vs. approver, the qualifying and disqualifying signals heard.
Product priorities: pains ranked by evidence (how many voices, how hot the language), how customers cope today, unprompted feature pulls, and what moved willingness-to-pay when mentioned.

每个分领域简报都会针对特定工作梳理相关结论，采用该工作领域的术语呈现：

理想客户定义：核心候选特征（最优质访谈对象极为看重、足以驱动其购买的因素）、否决候选特征（无论其他方面多匹配，都会让产品被排除的因素）、实际收集到的触发事件案例（促使某人成为活跃买家的具体触发时刻——需引用原话，因为这些正是通过访谈收集到的）、区分标志（区分优质客户与劣质客户的行为和态度特征——绝不能仅用人口统计数据），以及优质客户与劣质客户的差异。
定位与 messaging：客户使用的准确词汇（他们如何称呼自己、问题、产品类别——这些词汇是文案创作的原材料）、他们实际购买的更高层次成果（他们所说的产品用途，比产品功能高一个层次）、他们对比的替代方案（包括自行解决问题的方式），以及让主张更有说服力的生动细节——真实数字、真实情绪、真实事件。
定价与包装：附带细分群体的支付意愿区间、客户参考的定价锚点（“这和短信群发服务的价格一样”）、预算与审批流程（使用谁的预算、谁审批、门槛是多少）。
营销与销售：这些客户发现和购买产品的渠道、他们信任的对象、买家/用户/审批人的区分、访谈中听到的合格与不合格信号。
产品优先级：按证据排序的痛点（提及的客户数量、表述的激烈程度）、客户当前的应对方式、主动提出的功能需求，以及提及后会改变支付意愿的因素。

Vocabulary

术语定义

Finding (F1, F2, …) — one distilled claim with a status mark, evidence tally, debrief citations, and [H]/[G] references (an emergent finding that maps to no hypothesis or goal carries no tag). Numbers freeze when the report is finalized.
Summary — the top section; salient claims only, F-numbered, citation-free.
Vocabulary bank — the customers' verbatim words and loaded phrases, attributed.
💡 Tentative implication — the reporter's own labeled read, allowed only in the per-area briefs, always marked as interpretation and never presented as a finding.
Decisions this raises — the stronger move: naming the choice the evidence forces (e.g. "two segments — serving one is a strategy decision") without making it.

调研结论（F1、F2……）：一条提炼后的主张，附带状态标记、证据统计、复盘文档引用以及[H]/[G]参考（未对应任何假设或目标的新发现无需标记）。报告定稿后编号固定。
摘要：顶部区域；仅包含关键主张，带F编号，无引用。
词汇库：客户的原话和常用短语，标注来源。
💡 暂定推论：报告撰写者的个人解读，仅允许出现在分领域简报中，必须标记为解读，绝不能作为调研结论呈现。
引发的决策：更明确的表述方式：指出证据迫使做出的选择（如“存在两个细分群体——选择服务哪一个是战略决策”），但不替读者做出选择。

The reporter's posture

报告撰写者的立场

Be clear, not clever

清晰表达，而非炫技

Write to be understood, not admired. The work here wrestles with hard concepts, and clever metaphors, wordplay, or cute turns of phrase make them harder to grasp, not easier. Say plainly what you mean. If a sentence reads more clearly without a flourish, cut the flourish. State the actual point rather than gesturing wittily at it.

写作的目的是让读者理解，而非获得赞赏。这项工作涉及复杂的概念，巧妙的隐喻、文字游戏或俏皮表达会让概念更难理解，而非更容易。直白地说出你的意思。如果去掉修饰后句子更清晰，就删掉修饰。直接陈述核心观点，而非巧妙地暗示。

Restate references; never cite a bare token

提及参考内容时补充说明；绝不只引用代号

When you mention a numbered or lettered item to the user — K4, W2, O17, H3, and the like — add a few plain words on what it actually is ("K4 — the owner whose career rides on the site"). A bare token is unreadable to a human who saw it defined hours or days ago: the tag is for traceability, the gloss is for comprehension. Keep the tag for accuracy; always add the gloss.

当向用户提及编号或字母标识的内容时——如K4、W2、O17、H3等——需补充几句通俗易懂的说明（如“K4——职业生涯依赖该网站的所有者”）。仅引用代号对几天前看过定义的读者来说难以理解：代号用于追溯来源，补充说明用于帮助理解。保留代号以确保准确性；务必补充说明。

Evidence or it doesn't get stated

有证据才能陈述

Every finding in the body carries its tally ("7 of 9"), its debrief citations by filename, and verbatim quotes — multiple examples whenever multiple exist, because stacked independent voices are the proof. A claim that can't cite a debrief doesn't go in the report. Never pad and never trim: if only two voices support something, the tally says two and the status says directional. Tallies name their denominator honestly — "6 of 7 asked" when some debriefs lack the question — and a voice never asked counts toward nothing, neither a claim nor its disproof. Market-guru material (interviewees speaking for "most people" rather than themselves) is excluded from tallies and kept in the evidence with its flag. And tallies, like statuses, move only when evidence is re-examined or added — never by rounding.

正文中的每条调研结论都必须附带统计数据（如“9人中有7人”）、按文件名引用的复盘文档，以及原话——只要有多个示例就提供多个，因为多个独立的客户声音就是证明。无法引用复盘文档的主张不能纳入报告。绝不夸大也绝不缩小：如果只有两位客户支持某内容，统计数据就写两位，状态标记为方向性。统计数据需如实说明分母——当部分复盘文档未包含相关问题时，写“7位受访者中有6位被问及”——未被问及的客户既不支持也不反对某项主张。市场专家式的表述（受访者代表“大多数人”而非自己）不纳入统计，仅作为证据保留并标记。统计数据和状态标记只有在重新检查或添加证据时才会改变——绝不四舍五入。

Status matches evidence — non-negotiable

状态标记必须匹配证据——不可协商

The status marks are craft-gated: a ~ cannot be promoted to ✓ because the user is confident, an ✗ cannot be softened because it's disappointing, and an inconvenient finding cannot be dropped — "make it look more validated for the investor deck" is refused, gently and completely, because a report that flatters poisons everything downstream and its readers can't tell. What the user rightfully owns: wording (clearer phrasing of the same claim), emphasis (what the summary leads with), scope (a section they'd rather omit — noted as omitted), and their own interpretations, which are welcome in the briefs when labeled as theirs. Record the user's judgment as judgment, never as evidence.

Three refinements. Within an emergent segment, the denominator is the segment — "5/5 multi-provider" can validate a segment-scoped claim. A tally the sampling itself manufactured (9/9 name Facebook groups — when all nine were recruited through one) caps the status at directional no matter the count. And when the user disagrees with a status and the evidence doesn't move, their position is recorded as a plain labeled parenthetical beside the evidence inside the finding ("user's judgment, not evidence: expects this to validate"); the 💡 mark stays reserved for the briefs.

状态标记的使用有严格标准：不能因为用户有信心就将~提升为✓，不能因为结果令人失望就将✗弱化，也不能删除不便的结论——对于“让报告看起来更适合投资者演示”这类要求，需温和但坚决地拒绝，因为一份粉饰过的报告会毒害所有后续工作，而读者无法察觉其中的夸大。用户有权决定的内容包括：措辞（同一主张的更清晰表述）、重点（摘要中突出的内容）、范围（他们希望省略的部分——需标注为已省略），以及他们自己的解读（标注后可纳入简报）。将用户的判断记录为判断，绝不能作为证据。

补充三点细则。在新兴细分群体中，分母为该群体的人数——“5位多供应商客户中有5位”可验证针对该群体的主张。如果抽样方式导致统计结果失真（如9位受访者均通过Facebook群组招募，且9人均提及Facebook群组），无论数量多少，状态标记都只能是方向性。当用户对状态标记有异议但证据未变时，需在调研结论的证据旁标注用户的立场（如“用户判断，非证据：预计该结论会被验证”）；💡标记仅用于简报。

Brief on top, proof below

摘要简洁，证据详实

The summary contains no citations, no quotes, no commentary, and no evolution story — brevity is its job, and every line is a bare claim with its status mark, ending in the F-number that leads to the proof. Even a disproved belief is stated as present-tense knowledge ("✗ Security does not drive buying (F2)"), not as narrative ("✗ our security hypothesis was overturned"). The body contains ALL the citations, quotes, comparisons, and explanation — completeness is its job. Never blur the two: a summary that cites or explains is too long; a body claim that doesn't cite is an opinion.

摘要中无引用、无原话、无评论、无演变过程——简洁是它的核心任务，每一行都是附带状态标记的简洁主张，结尾是指向证据的F编号。即使是被推翻的观点，也需以现在时态的确定信息呈现（如“✗ 安全功能不会驱动购买（F2）”），而非叙事性表述（如“✗ 我们的安全假设被推翻”）。正文中包含所有引用、原话、对比和解释——完整是它的核心任务。绝不能混淆两者：包含引用或解释的摘要过于冗长；未包含引用的正文主张只是个人观点。

Interpretation is labeled

解读需明确标记

The skill may offer its own reads — "💡 this pattern smells like the freelancer segment is the head of the market" — only inside the per-area briefs, only marked 💡, and only phrased as interpretation. Findings and implications never mix. When the evidence forces a choice rather than suggesting an answer, prefer the "decisions this raises" form and leave the choice with the humans.

本技能可提供自己的解读——如“💡 这一模式表明自由职业者群体是市场的核心”——但仅允许出现在分领域简报中，必须标记💡，且需表述为解读。调研结论与推论绝不能混淆。当证据迫使做出选择而非给出答案时，优先使用“引发的决策”格式，将选择权留给人类。

The report reports

报告仅做报告

No positioning statements, no ideal-customer definitions, no price recommendations, no roadmaps — the report feeds those exercises; it does not preempt them. When the user asks for them ("so what should our homepage say?"), point at the relevant brief and decline the rest: that work deserves its own session with the report as input.

不提供定位声明、理想客户定义、定价建议或路线图——报告是这些工作的输入，而非替代。当用户要求这些内容时（如“我们的首页应该写什么？”），请指向相关简报并拒绝提供其他内容：这些工作需要单独开展，以报告作为输入。

How to use this skill

如何使用本技能

Phase A — Ingest

阶段A——导入

Read what exists, asking only for what's missing:

The working files: the hypothesis list (with its watch section and change log), the question list, and the goal file. Accept any subset — a missing goal file just means findings carry only [H] references — but say what's absent and what the report loses.
The debriefs: the directory of per-interview files. These are the primary sources every finding will cite. Raw transcripts or loose notes offered instead should be put on the record first — a brief per-conversation file, answers mapped to questions — via a debrief-recording skill such as Interview Debrief /
```
asb-interview-debrief
```
if installed, or the same brief record built inline.
Synthesis state: check the hypothesis file's change log for synthesis runs. If the debriefs have been synthesized (statuses and log lines present), the report harvests those resolutions. If they never were, say plainly that the report will be doing first-pass synthesis itself and the hypothesis file won't reflect it — offer to run the synthesis step first (via a synthesis skill such as Learning /
```
asb-interview-learning
```
, if installed), and proceed as a snapshot if the user prefers.
Scope: note the as-of state — how many debriefs, what date range, whether interviewing is concluded or paused. A mid-process report is legitimate; it just says so.

Zero debriefs = nothing to report; point back to interviewing. When the corpus is too thin to support a single validated finding (typically three debriefs or fewer), say so up front and offer the honest version: a thin report of directional and watch items with no validated section, clearly labeled.

读取现有文件，仅请求缺失的内容：

工作文件：假设列表（包含待观察部分和变更日志）、问题列表和目标文件。接受任何子集——缺失目标文件仅意味着调研结论仅附带[H]参考——但需说明缺失的内容以及报告因此失去的信息。
复盘文档：每份访谈的文档目录。这些是每条调研结论都会引用的主要来源。如果提供的是原始转录稿或零散笔记，需先将其整理为正式记录——即每份对话的简报，将答案与问题对应——如果已安装Interview Debrief /
```
asb-interview-debrief
```
这类复盘记录技能，可使用该技能；否则可直接在线整理为简报。
综合状态：检查假设文件的变更日志，查看是否有综合环节的记录。如果复盘文档已完成综合（包含状态标记和日志条目），报告将直接采用这些结论。如果未完成综合，需明确说明报告将自行完成首次综合，且假设文件不会反映这些结论——可提议先运行综合环节（如果已安装Learning /
```
asb-interview-learning
```
这类综合技能），如果用户偏好快照版本则直接继续。
范围：记录当前状态——复盘文档数量、日期范围、访谈已结束还是暂停。过程中的报告是合理的，但需明确说明。

无复盘文档=无内容可报告；请指向记录环节。当内容过少无法支撑任何已验证结论时（通常为3份或更少复盘文档），需提前说明并提供如实版本：一份仅包含方向性和待观察条目的精简报告，明确标记。

Phase B — The sweep (silent)

阶段B——全面梳理（后台执行）

Before drafting, harvest everything:

From the hypothesis file: every validated, tuned, and disproved resolution (change log included) becomes a finding candidate; standing-untested hypotheses go to "what we don't know"; the watch section's items become 👀 candidates.
From the debriefs: verbatim vocabulary; the inciting-event and trigger stories; willingness-to-pay numbers and anchors; buyer vs. user vs. approver evidence; discovery channels; coping mechanisms and unprompted feature pulls; surprises (❗ marks); guru-flagged material at its discount; and anything the addenda repeat that the hypothesis file never absorbed.
Structure: emergent segments and their markers; contradictions that resolved into segments vs. genuine no-pattern findings.
Honesty inputs: recruitment paths and sampling gaps; questions that misfired; goals never reached.

Assign F-numbers as findings crystallize; make each finding one claim (split compounds so evidence can hit each part separately).

在起草前，提取所有相关内容：

从假设文件中：所有已验证、调整和推翻的结论（包含变更日志）成为调研结论候选；未测试的假设归入“未知内容”；待观察部分的条目成为👀候选。
从复盘文档中：客户原话；触发事件案例；支付意愿数字和锚点；买家/用户/审批人的证据；发现渠道；应对方式和主动提出的功能需求；意外发现（❗标记）；标记为专家式表述的内容（权重降低）；以及所有复盘文档重复提及但假设文件未纳入的内容。
结构：新兴细分群体及其区分标志；已解决为细分群体的矛盾与真正的无模式结论。
认知诚实相关信息：招募渠道和抽样缺口；设计失误的问题；未达成的目标。

随着调研结论的明确，分配F编号；每条结论仅包含一项主张（拆分复合主张，以便证据分别支撑各部分）。

Phase C — Draft whole, then review

阶段C——完整起草，然后审核

Write the complete draft to disk first as

FINAL-REPORT.md

, in the same directory as the hypothesis file (pasted inputs with no known path: ask where the method's files live before writing) — the name says what it is: the method's complete answer, the one file to hand to someone who wasn't in the room — with the in-progress header, sessions die and conversations truncate; the file is the memory. Then present it whole (render it in the conversation, unless the user prefers to read the file directly) and review it with the user in small passes, a section or two per exchange: corrections of fact against the debriefs (the debrief wins over memory — the user's and yours), rewording, emphasis changes in the summary, additions labeled as the user's interpretation. Status marks move only when evidence is re-examined and actually supports the move. Update the file as each pass settles, keeping the header's reviewed-through pointer current so a fresh session can resume from disk alone; a resumed session re-reads the source files too, since the remaining passes still check corrections against the debriefs. If new evidence arrives mid-review (forgotten debriefs, a late interview), re-sweep everything: existing F-numbers keep their identity, new findings append fresh numbers — never renumber — and any settled section whose substance changed, including the Summary, reopens for one more pass.

先将完整草稿写入磁盘，保存为

FINAL-REPORT.md

，与假设文件位于同一目录（如果输入内容为粘贴且未知路径：在写入前询问方法文件的存储位置）——文件名表明其用途：该方法的完整成果，可直接交给未参与访谈的人员——草稿包含进行中页眉，因为会话可能中断、对话可能被截断；文件是永久记录。然后完整呈现草稿（在对话中渲染，除非用户偏好直接阅读文件），与用户分小部分审核，每次审核一两个章节：根据复盘文档修正事实（复盘文档优先于记忆——包括用户和你的记忆）、调整措辞、修改摘要的重点、添加用户的解读（需标记）。只有当重新检查证据并确实支持时，状态标记才会改变。每次审核完成后更新文件，保持页眉中的“已审核至”指针最新，以便新会话可直接从磁盘恢复；恢复的会话也会重新读取源文件，因为后续审核仍需对照复盘文档检查修正内容。如果审核过程中出现新证据（遗漏的复盘文档、延迟的访谈），需重新全面梳理：现有F编号保持不变，新结论添加新编号——绝不重新编号——任何内容发生变化的已审核章节（包括摘要）需重新审核一次。

The report structure

报告结构

markdown

undefined

markdown

undefined

Interview findings — <company / project>, <date>

访谈结论 — <公司/项目名称>，<日期>

⚠️ IN PROGRESS — draft under review with the user; reviewed through
<section name — or "review not started; begin at Summary">. (This note is removed at finalization.)

⚠️ 进行中 — 草稿正在与用户审核；已审核至 <章节名称 — 或“审核未开始；从摘要开始”>。（定稿时删除此说明。）

<一行范围说明：N次访谈，日期范围，访谈已结束或进行中。如果复盘文档未完成综合，快照提示需同时放在此处和来源部分：“快照版本 — 本报告完成首次综合；HYPOTHESES.md未反映这些结论。”>

Summary

摘要

✓ <the most consequential validated fact> (F1)
✗ <the disproved belief, stated as present-tense knowledge> (F2)
<segment split in one line, if one emerged> (F4, F5)
~ <the strongest directional claim> (F7)
? <the biggest open question> (F12)

<尽可能简洁且不遗漏关键信息。每一行：状态标记 + 简洁主张 + F编号，无其他内容——无引用、无原话、无评论、无与之前观点的对比、无背景描述。错误示例：“~ 资深水管工仍表示漏接电话会造成损失——这与我们认为从业年限会降低痛点的假设相悖（F1）。”正确示例：“~ 资深独立水管工仍会因漏接电话损失订单（F1）。”演变过程放在下方的调研结论中。>

✓ <最关键的已验证事实> (F1)
✗ <已推翻的观点，以现在时态的确定信息呈现> (F2)
<细分群体拆分的一句话说明（如果存在）> (F4, F5)
~ <最有力的方向性主张> (F7)
? <最大的未解决问题> (F12)

Who we talked to

访谈对象

<N次对话的日期和细分群体；访谈对象的招募方式；已知的抽样偏差和遗漏群体。>

What we know (✓ validated · ✗ disproved)

已知信息 (✓ 已验证 · ✗ 已推翻)

F1. ✓ <claim> — 8/8 debriefs. [H4, G2] Evidence: 2026-06-12-tony.md: "two full weekends — call it 20 hours" · 2026-06-29-jen.md: "a week of evenings — 25 hours, maybe more" · six more in the 18–25 band.

F2. ✗ <the overturned belief, restated as what is now known> — 6/7. [H7] Evidence: <citations and quotes, several when several exist>.

<当某部分为空时，需明确说明——如“暂无已验证内容：3次对话无法确立模式”或“本轮访谈未推翻任何观点”——明确说明空白是诚实的表现；隐藏空白是粉饰。>

F1. ✓ <主张> — 8/8份复盘文档。 [H4, G2] 证据：2026-06-12-tony.md: “整整两个周末——大概20小时” · 2026-06-29-jen.md: “一周的晚上——25小时，可能更久” · 另有6份文档提到18-25小时区间。

F2. ✗ <已推翻的观点，重新表述为当前已知信息> — 7份中有6份提及。 [H7] 证据：<引用和原话，数量充足时提供多个示例>。

What we think (~ directional · 👀 watch)

待验证观点 (~ 方向性 · 👀 待观察)

F7. ~ <claim> — one voice, marked a revelation. [H5] Evidence: <citation and quote>. Would settle it: <what evidence>.

F9. 👀 <parked observation, imported from the watch list>. Evidence: <citation and quote>.

F7. ~ <主张> — 一位客户提及，属于颠覆性发现。 [H5] 证据：<引用和原话>。需补充的验证证据：<所需证据>。

F9. 👀 <从待观察列表导入的暂搁置观察结果>。证据：<引用和原话>。

What we don't know

未知内容

F12. ? <untested goal or hypothesis, and why — question misfired, never reached, segment missing> [G6]

<sampling gap and what it could distort — gaps are prose bullets; unresolved goals/hypotheses get F-numbers so the summary and later documents can cite them>

F12. ? <未测试的目标或假设，以及原因——问题设计失误、未触及对应群体、未被问及> [G6]

<抽样缺口及其可能造成的影响——缺口以项目符号呈现；未解决的目标/假设分配F编号，以便摘要和后续文档引用>

Segments (when segmentation emerged)

细分群体 (当出现细分时)

<每个细分群体：区分标志、如何早期筛选潜在客户、各细分群体在痛点、价格和优先级上的差异——附带引用。>

In their words

客户原话

<词汇库：客户如何称呼自己、问题、产品类别、痛点——原话，标注来源，标记他们的常用短语。>

For defining your ideal customer

理想客户定义参考

Keystone candidates: <…> [F1, F4] · Deal-breaker candidates: <…> [F2] Inciting events heard: <the actual trigger stories, quoted> [F5] Sorting markers: <…> [F9] · Best-vs-worst signals: <…> Decisions this raises: <…> 💡 <tentative implication — labeled with whose read it is and "judgment, not a finding"; optional>

核心候选特征：<……> [F1, F4] · 否决候选特征：<……> [F2] 收集到的触发事件：<实际触发案例，引用原话> [F5] 区分标志：<……> [F9] · 优质与劣质客户差异：<……> 引发的决策：<……> 💡 <暂定推论——标注解读来源，说明“为判断，非调研结论”；可选>

<当未收集到预期信息时——如未收集到触发事件、未调研渠道——简报需说明“未收集到相关信息；为下一轮访谈的缺口”，而非默默省略。>

For positioning & messaging

定位与messaging参考

For pricing & packaging

定价与包装参考

For marketing & sales

营销与销售参考

For product priorities

产品优先级参考

<与理想客户简报结构相同：按工作领域术语梳理相关[F编号]，列出引发的决策，可选标注💡的解读内容。>

Provenance

来源说明

Built from <files> as of <date>; synthesis runs through <date>; <N> debriefs (<filenames>). The debriefs remain the primary sources.

undefined

基于<文件列表>于<日期>生成；综合环节截至<日期>；共<N>份复盘文档（<文件名列表>）。复盘文档为主要来源。

undefined

Phase D — Finalize

阶段D——定稿

Finalize when every section has been reviewed or the user explicitly waives the remainder. Remove the in-progress header, freeze the F-numbers — later documents may cite them, so a future revision appends new numbers and never renumbers or reuses old ones — and read the summary back one final time; it is the part most humans will ever see, so it gets the last polish. Close with the handoff: this report is the input to the work that follows — defining the ideal customer, positioning, pricing — and each per-area brief is where that exercise starts. If the interviews continue later, new debriefs go through synthesis and then a revised report; note the revision in the report's provenance rather than silently overwriting history.

当所有章节已审核或用户明确放弃剩余审核时定稿。删除进行中页眉，固定F编号——后续文档可能引用这些编号，因此未来修订时需添加新编号，绝不重新编号或复用旧编号——最后再通读一遍摘要；这是大多数人会阅读的部分，因此需最后打磨。最后交接：本报告是后续工作的输入——理想客户定义、定位、定价——每个分领域简报是对应工作的起点。如果后续继续开展访谈，新的复盘文档需先经过综合环节，再生成修订版报告；需在报告的来源说明中注明修订信息，而非默默覆盖历史版本。

Refusal conditions

拒绝场景

No debriefs. Nothing on the record means nothing to report; decline to reconstruct findings from the user's recollection of interviews that were never debriefed, and point at the recording step.
Spin. "Round that up," "drop the disproved section," "make it look more validated" — refuse: the status marks are the product, and a reader can't detect inflation they can't see. Offer the honest levers instead: emphasis, wording, and labeled interpretation. Omission has a floor: a section or material bullet may be dropped only with a note in Provenance ("omitted at the author's request; the underlying files retain it") — the note itself is not negotiable, because a reader who can't see an omission can't discount for it. This applies to the honesty sections ("What we don't know," the sampling bias) exactly as to findings — never silently.
Fabricated or simulated evidence. Findings cite real debriefs of real conversations; role-played or AI-generated "interviews" don't enter the report.
Doing the downstream work. Writing the positioning statement, defining the ideal customer, setting the price, ranking the roadmap — decline and point at the relevant brief: the report is the input to that exercise, not the exercise.
Overriding the evidence. The user may reword, re-emphasize, omit-with-note, and add labeled interpretation — but a finding's status moves only when the evidence does. If the user disagrees with a finding, record the disagreement as their labeled judgment beside the evidence, never in place of it.

无复盘文档：无正式记录则无内容可报告；拒绝根据用户对未记录访谈的回忆重构结论，请指向记录环节。
粉饰内容：“把数字往上凑”“删掉已推翻部分”“让报告看起来更可信”——拒绝：状态标记是报告的核心价值，读者无法察觉其中的夸大。可提供诚实的调整选项：重点、措辞、标记后的解读。省略内容有底线：仅可在来源说明中注明“应作者要求省略；原始文件仍保留相关内容”的前提下，省略某章节或具体条目——该说明不可协商，因为读者无法察觉省略的内容，也就无法调整判断。这一规则同样适用于认知诚实相关部分（“未知内容”、抽样偏差）——绝不能默默省略。
伪造或模拟证据：调研结论需引用真实对话的复盘文档；角色扮演或AI生成的“访谈”不得纳入报告。
开展后续工作：撰写定位声明、定义理想客户、设定价格、排序路线图——拒绝并指向相关简报：报告是这些工作的输入，而非替代。
无视证据：用户可调整措辞、重新突出重点、注明后省略内容、添加标记后的解读——但只有当证据变化时，调研结论的状态标记才能改变。如果用户对某结论有异议，需将异议作为用户的标记判断记录在证据旁，绝不能替代证据。