Invite only
Add a problem statement. The tool reads the emotional context, confirms the user feelings, selects the right frameworks, and maps a journey with solutions.
Write it as you'd hear it — from discovery research, a user complaint, or a stakeholder brief. Root it in what you've actually uncovered, not assumptions.
List the user types or personas — how many distinct types, who they are, what drives them, what they're trying to do. Be specific about what you know from research vs. what's an assumption.
Each sentence maps a feeling to the moment it breaks, and the need underneath. Fill in the blanks — context is pre-suggested, need auto-fills when you pick a feeling.
If you have user quotes, observations, or research notes, drop them in. This turns Claude's inferred feelings into real ones — and carries through to every framework and concept after this.
Claude has been agreeing with your setup. Ask it to argue the opposite — what if the real problem is something else entirely?
Based on the feelings and problem type, these are the most useful lenses. The primary one is pre-selected — you can add more.
The circled step is where the experience breaks. Everything below is designed for that moment.
Your mirror is ranked first — the cheapest fix with the highest emotional return.
Force a critique of the top-ranked solution before we move to concepts.
Each tackles the emotional gap differently. Pick one to prototype, or run all three past users as low-fi stimuli.
Your current HMW will be struck through in the journey history, so you can see how the framing evolved.