# User research evidence and analysis worksheet

Prepared by User Intuition. Editable planning example, updated 19 September 2026.
Companion: https://www.userintuition.ai/reference-guides/user-research-analysis-methods/

Use participant IDs rather than names. Keep source material in the approved research system.

## Analysis plan

- Research question and decision owner: [Fill]
- Method and reason for choosing it: [Thematic / framework / narrative / other]
- Coding approach and researcher assumptions: [Fill]
- Unit of analysis: [Participant / event / passage / other]
- Sample, recruitment source, and coverage limits: [Fill]
- Guide versions included: [Fill]
- Treatment of missing answers and exclusions: [Fill]
- Review process and responsible researcher: [Fill]

## Evidence record — duplicate for each relevant passage

- Record ID: [Fill]
- Participant ID: [Fill]
- Transcript or recording location: [Link, timestamp, or exact turn]
- Speaker: [Participant / moderator / screener response]
- Exact excerpt, if needed: [Preserve wording; identify any omissions]
- Context and preceding question: [Fill]
- Audio checked where meaning was uncertain: [Yes / no / unavailable]
- Initial code: [Short label grounded in the passage]
- Analyst interpretation: [Separate from quotation]
- Alternative interpretation or contradictory evidence: [Fill]
- What remains unknown: [Fill]

## Provisional finding — duplicate for each proposed finding

- Finding in one sentence: [Fill]
- Research question it addresses: [Fill]
- Supporting record IDs: [Fill]
- Contradictory record IDs: [Fill]
- Who was eligible to answer: [Fill]
- Count and denominator, if appropriate to the method: [Fill]
- Not asked / unclear / no relevant experience: [Keep separate]
- Is this a single case, cross-case pattern, or hypothesis? [Fill]
- Limits on generalization: [Fill]
- Decision it can support now: [Fill]
- Additional evidence needed for a stronger decision: [Fill]
- Owner and next action: [Fill]

## Completed teaching example

Source: W30, phone-replacement interview in the public User Intuition preview.
Location: Participant answer to why Walmart rather than another store or online.
Excerpt: “I could access phones in other store but Walmart was nearest to me.”
Code: Nearest store for an urgent replacement.
Case finding: In this account, proximity helped the shopper act quickly after the old phone broke.
Alternative explanation: Prior expectations of service or product availability may also have mattered.
Evidence gap: The complete set of sellers considered before departure is not established.
Limit: One shopper's account does not establish market-wide preference or a causal effect.
Next action: Reconstruct the consideration sequence and compare urgent with planned trips in further interviews.

This is an analyst's teaching example using published study material, not a new finding about all shoppers.
The two public sample interviews are not the entire 43-participant study dataset.
https://www.userintuition.ai/preview/#interviews

## Readout review

- Can a colleague trace each consequential claim to the original passage?
- Are participant speech, analyst interpretation, and proposed action clearly distinguished?
- Are prompted and unprompted responses distinguishable where relevant?
- Have exceptions and missing answers been preserved?
- Do counts use the correct unit and eligible denominator?
- Are recommendations no stronger than the evidence permits?
- Does the presentation state what the study cannot establish?

Example presentation with method and limitation slides:
https://www.userintuition.ai/preview/#deck