Find customer problems in an approved research corpus
Preserve what people actually said and the evidence that disagrees with your hypothesis.
What you’ll produce
A problem map with source excerpts, context, counterexamples, and interview questions.
Inputs & connections
- Permitted discussion excerpts or approved interview notes
- Research question and a description of the intended audience
Begin with approved exports or pasted source material. Live access requires separately configured integrations and permissions; this guide does not install them.
Your starting prompt
Replace the bracketed fields. This is our suggested prompt, not a quote from the source.
Analyze [approved corpus] for [research question]. Identify recurring problems in the participants' own terms and attach source IDs. Separate a direct statement from your inference. Include counterexamples, sampling limitations, and questions to validate in interviews. Do not treat frequency in this sample as market prevalence or infer sensitive personal traits. Keep quotes short and attributable.
How to run it
- 01
Define the research question and permitted collection method.
- 02
Retain source context and remove unnecessary personal details.
- 03
Review the suggested themes against both supporting and contradictory excerpts.
- 04
Validate important hypotheses through direct customer research.
Review before you act
A researcher checks whether the summary preserves context and represents minority or conflicting views.
Limitations & success checks
- Online discussions are a biased sample.
- A frequent complaint does not establish willingness to pay.
Measure: Traceable themes, contradicted assumptions surfaced, and interview validation.
Sources & attribution
The sources below support the reported example or a tool capability. They do not validate our prompt or prove the outcome in your environment.
January 4, 2024. Describes using public discussions to research customer problems. Our workflow uses an approved research corpus and preserves conflicting evidence.
Creator / publisher: Cody Schneider
Editorial review: October 11, 2026. How we label evidence.