Workshop 1 - Research Tech x Zebra Design Sprint

Date: 5 January 2026 Participants: Research Tech team + Charlie Ellington (Zebra Design) Methodology: Adapted Google Ventures Design Sprint / Deep Work Studio methodology

⚠️ [FACILITATOR NOTE - ICP WARNING]

The existing user research document (upfront-user-research.md) defines ICP as "Early-Stage VC + Growth Equity." However, the team explicitly warned during the workshop that this research should NOT be treated as definitive:

• Research is considered outdated
• Based on one person's opinion
• Too heavily focused on Polish market
• Team repeatedly emphasized: "Don't take this as the ICP problem being solved"

The ICP is NOT defined. Design decisions should not assume the research document reflects the final ICP. This is an open question that the sprint cannot resolve.

Overview

This document captures the full outcomes from Workshop 1 of the Zebra Design Sprint with Research Tech. The workshop followed the Deep Work Studio adapted design sprint methodology, covering:

1. How Might We (HMW) brainstorming
2. Long Term Goal definition
3. Sprint Questions identification
4. User Journey Mapping

Focus Area Decision: After reviewing both user journeys and overlaying HMWs and sprint questions, the purple path (app onboarding and in-app user experience) was selected as the sprint focus. The yellow path (website and sales strategy) represents important work but is secondary to the core product experience.

Critical Architecture Principle

[FROM DEC 18 CALL - ELEVATED PRIORITY]

Extensible Interface: "Not redesign everything — add products to the interface — not start from scratch — repeat the interface"

This principle must guide all interface decisions. The system should be designed so new features, report types, and capabilities can be added without redesigning existing screens. This is essential for:

• Seed round timeline (7-8 months)
• Scaling to multiple customer types
• Future product additions (e.g., podcast features, new research modules)

Design Implication: Component-based, modular UI architecture. New features plug into existing patterns rather than requiring new layouts.

Facilitator Observations

[CRITICAL CONTEXT FOR FUTURE DECISIONS]

1. Brand/Communication Over-Focus: During the HMW session, the team appeared heavily focused on brand and communication topics. This may indicate some team members expected "design" to focus on marketing/branding rather than interface, UX, and product details.

2. Undefined ICP: The team had not defined their Ideal Customer Profile (ICP) prior to the workshop. This resulted in ongoing debate throughout all exercises about who the target customer is. This lack of clarity likely contributed to the emphasis on branding/positioning discussions rather than concrete interface and UX decisions.

   [FACILITATOR NOTE: While upfront-user-research.md suggests ICP is defined, the team explicitly rejected this during the workshop — see warning at top of document.]

3. Incomplete Sprint Questions: The sprint questions session felt incomplete due to time constraints. The questions were also heavily focused on "can we find the right ICP" - which is not something an interface prototype and user testing can effectively validate.

4. Dual User Journey Resolution: Two user journeys received equal votes. Initially attempted to combine them, then recognized they represent two distinct flows:

   • Yellow Path: Website and sales strategy (landing, conversion, signup)
   • Purple Path: Onboarding and user journey within the application

   The purple path (app experience) was selected as the focus based on HMW and sprint question alignment.

Session 1: How Might We (HMW)

All HMW notes from the workshop. During voting, similar HMWs were clustered together and voted as a combined theme. The vote count reflects the total dots on a cluster, not individual items.

[CLUSTER 1 - 4 VOTES] Competitive Differentiation

Theme: How do we clearly show we're better than competitors, specifically AI alternatives?

[CLUSTER 2 - 4 VOTES] Value Communication Through Interface

Theme: How do we make the complexity and quality of research visible and understandable in the product?

[STANDALONE - 3 VOTES] Narrative & Explanation

Theme: Building a clear story about what the product does

[CLUSTER 3 - 3 VOTES] Information Architecture & Reports

Theme: How do we structure and organize the research output for users?

[STANDALONE - 2 VOTES EACH] User Experience Fundamentals

[CLUSTER 4 - 2 VOTES] Product Enjoyment

Two duplicate notes clustered together

[1 VOTE EACH] Lower Priority Items

HMW Priority Summary

Observation: The top-voted clusters split between marketing/positioning concerns (Clusters 1 & 3) and product/UX concerns (Clusters 2 & 4). This reflects the team's split focus identified in Facilitator Observations. For the sprint focus on application design, Clusters 2 and 4 plus the standalone UX items are most actionable.

Session 2: Long Term Goal

All long term goal statements submitted by the team. Items marked with [SELECTED] were voted as the final goal.

[SELECTED - PRIMARY GOAL - 2 VOTES]

"In two years time we have $5M ARR, strong brand, hundreds of happy customers and we are market leader when it comes to analysis of projects/ideas/ventures. We also have strong growth potential and team which can deliver it."

[SELECTED - SECONDARY GOAL - 1 VOTE]

"In two years time... the product is so good that we have huge number of satisfied clients that makes us worth $100M and Consultancies or other Corporations start to show us their interest in buying a piece of our business or the whole business"

Other Submitted Goals (Not Selected)

"In two years' time, we will have a modular solution with multiple use-case usages, so it can work not only for investors but for anybody."

"In two years time we supported dozens of enterprise level customers making their research pipelines XX procent more efficient and scalable"

"In two years time research tech we'll be raising a series A because they have a well defined and simple to use premium product, over layers of complexity and value, bringing in strong revenue which is customised by their different categories of users"

Session 3: Sprint Questions

All sprint questions submitted, with voted/prioritized items marked. Sprint questions use pessimistic framing ("Can we...") to identify potential obstacles.

[FINAL PRIORITIZED SPRINT QUESTIONS]

Primary Question:

"Can we find what ICPs are willing to pay for?"

Secondary Question:

"Can we show unique value for clients, their will to choose our solutions over competitions"

All Submitted Sprint Questions

Competition & Differentiation

• Can we make a product that will always be a step ahead of main players like Gemini, OpenAI, or others? [VOTED]
• Can we create a product which user will prefer of chatgpt/gemini or others even if it cost much more [VOTED]
• Can we...make the solution more trustworthy than other options on the market?

ICP & Market Fit

• Can we interact with the right ICP and niche? [VOTED]
• Can we find what ICPs are willing to pay for? [PRIORITIZED]
• Can we create a product which will fit needs of many different customers from different industries
• Can we show unique value for clients, their will to choose our solutions over competitions [PRIORITIZED]

User Experience

• Can customers navigate the research in a fun and simple way?
• Can we show simplicity in complexity? [HIGHLIGHTED]
• Can customers understand the complexity and value in the product yet use it simply?

Growth & Scale

• Can we... reach the scale fast enough to be fundable?
• Can we easily sell this product, encourage users to try it and keep customer acquisition cost reasonable
• Can we use feedback from the market more effectively to make better decisions

Product Capabilities

• Can we enable our users to create their proprietary workflows that are so unique that even other users using our product will not be able to copy them?
• Can we build a product which works for fully automated use-cases with simple API integrations for customers wanting everything and for users with less technical knowledge

Session 4: User Journey Mapping

Two user journeys emerged with equal votes. They represent two distinct flows within the overall product experience.

[FOCUS AREA] Purple Path: App Onboarding & User Experience

This path was selected as the sprint focus based on alignment with HMWs and sprint questions.

Sprint Question Overlay: "Can we find what ICPs are willing to pay for?"

Journey Steps (Verbatim + Facilitator Notes)

Step 1 - Quick Start / File Upload

"They can upload a file to see quick results OR we show them an example"

Additional notes:

• The customer can start generating a report in a few minutes through some basic input data. The report starts generating.
• Fast, enjoyable and simple
• Our website has to be focused on constant CTA for them to register as for now it's free (make it an exclusive waiting list availability)

Step 1b - Data Collection (Optional)

"We are gathering key information to be able to select the right user flow:

1. type of business / size
2. their role
3. what value they want to get
4. email, full name, phone number"

Step 2 - Quick Analysis & Education

"Within a few minutes... The basic structure of the report is shown to the user. It shows the value and quality (even if the results take longer) by explaining the complexity. The user is educated to the research method."

Additional notes:

• The first analysis is being generated — a quick basic analysis done in 10-15 minutes
• Meanwhile user can see the progress and learn more about the product, especially what will be possible next after quick basic analysis
• User can ask questions to our AI assistant via chat interface to understand product better — our AI chat assistant should answer any question
• Analysis is done: user can see initial report with interesting findings, ask follow-up questions
• User sees recommendations for additional research and analysis tasks (e.g., "competition", "similar projects", "team deep dive", "technology deep dive")
• User can select what they want to research next and start it with pressing a button

[HMWs OVERLAID ON STEPS 2-3]

Note: The facilitator placed HMWs on the user journey steps during the workshop. The team verbally agreed with app focus when presented, but due to time constraints there was no individual confirmation of each placement. This represents the facilitator's interpretation of where HMWs apply, endorsed by group consensus but not individually validated.

The following HMW clusters were placed on Steps 2 and 3. This indicates these messages should be communicated through the interface itself — not just on marketing pages.

Key Design Implication: The interface at Steps 2-3 must actively communicate:

1. Why Research Tech > Gemini/ChatGPT (differentiation through the UI, not just copy)
2. The quality and depth of research (show complexity being simplified)
3. A clear narrative (what's happening, why it matters)

This is where "marketing" and "product" converge — the app itself is the pitch.

Step 3 - Customization & Editing

"The user can edit the research methods or provide further information whilst the report is generating. Customising it to their needs."

Additional notes:

• Users want additional research or analyze new project, but for that they need to pay
• Payment options: selecting subscription/buying credits OR scheduling a call with sales
• Scheduling a call is done by selecting time slot and providing email

Step 4 - Status Communication

"The customer is clearly informed to the process and report generation."

Additional notes:

• Longer report generation takes between 6 to 8 hours

Step 5 - Report Overview

"The customer can see the high level of the report when ready. The data is presented in an interesting and succinct way. They can go into more detail at each point they want."

Additional notes:

• Show them an example so they can explore
• We need data of the users

[CRITICAL - ALTERNATIVE ENTRY POINT]

This can be an entry point. For example, a member of the Research Tech team gathers the data and prepares a report for a customer or potential customer. They can then enter at this point and be onboarded to a completed report.

THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT — Step 5 functions as both a mid-journey screen AND a potential first-touch onboarding point for pre-prepared reports.

Step 6 - Deep Dive & Trust

"The customer can go into more detail at each point in any way they want. They also have trust and transparency by seeing the research method, sources, and details."

Additional notes:

• Use it; see how complex it is (like how many things are verified and that they can double-check everything)

[FROM DEC 18 CALL - ADDITIONAL CONTEXT FOR STEPS 5-6]

• Chat interface for report exploration: Users should be able to select content and ask questions about the report — like ChatGPT but contextual to the report content ("chat about the report")
• User as author/creator: "Create the impression that it's not us that create the system, they are the authors" — users should feel ownership and pride, not just control. They built this research, not just used a tool.
• Show complexity graphically: "Needs to show how complex the system is to the client — e.g. 1,000 interactions with AI" — visual representation of the depth and effort (processes, steps, verifications)

[HMWs OVERLAID ON STEPS 5-6]

Note: Facilitator placement, group consensus (see caveat at Steps 2-3).

The following HMW clusters were placed on Steps 5 and 6 — the report viewing and deep dive experience:

Information Architecture Cluster (3 votes)

Product Enjoyment Cluster (2 votes)

UX Fundamentals (2 votes each)

Key Design Implication: The report interface (Steps 5-6) must:

1. Information hierarchy — high-level overview with progressive depth
2. Tree/modular structure — navigate reports independently, not linearly
3. Build trust — visible sources, methods, verification
4. Give user control — choose how deep to go
5. Stay simple — despite underlying complexity
6. Be enjoyable — not just functional, but pleasant to use

Step 7 - Feedback Loop

"Feedback loop"

Additional notes:

• #IDEA: People can record their voice in English and we use the transcript either as testimonial OR analyse the recording to gather feedback to improve

HMWs Overlaid on Purple Path

The purple path aligns with the Product/UX focused HMW clusters:

Individual HMWs on this path:

• HMW + clients to... (have information hierarchy)
• HMW have information hierarchy
• HMW create a tree of reports
• HMW make the reports modular
• HMW make the value clear in the interface
• HMW highlight how good the research is
• HMW show the value in the complexity simplified
• HMW educate and explain the complexity, quality of the product
• HMW let users control the level of research
• HMW create a clear and simple interface
• HMW build trust with the user

Additional Notes on Purple Path

"Our website has to be focused on complex research, not on finance, corporate regular. As for now it's for complex business"

"ASIA: Always ask new users if they're doing research for complex businesses after 1 day start to see how much they..."

"Our website has experts giving their opinion and example of businesses we've analyzed to give the user a highlight"

Yellow Path: Website & Sales Strategy (Secondary)

This path represents the acquisition and conversion flow. Important but secondary to the app experience focus.

Sprint Question Overlay: "Can we show unique value for clients, their will to choose our solutions over competitions"

Journey Steps (Verbatim)

Step 1 - Discovery

"They ask a question in LLM (like ChatGPT) how to evaluate companies, startups, chains. Or they are recommended by Google after typing such question"

Step 2 - Landing

"they land on our website" "Customer lands on a landing page and can see the value over competitors. They start the application."

Step 3 - Demo Experience

"on the website they sign away we offer them 1 demo/demo they want to see in the app and it focuses on showcasing the potential, value and builds trust"

Step 4 - Signup/Onboarding

"then they can start / initiate the buy or sign up phase, where they'll need to explain the type of business and..."

Step 5 - Quick Value

"They can upload a file to see quick results OR we show them an example"

Step 6 - First Report

"The customer can start generating a report of a their business through different report types. The first flow is fast, enjoyable and simple"

Step 7 - Referrals

"They can get discounts for referrals or a subject. If they refer, a friend they can get thumbs up on product hunt" "will be referrals" "Notifications and loop"

HMWs Overlaid on Yellow Path

The yellow path aligns with the Marketing/Positioning focused HMW clusters:

Individual HMWs on this path:

• HMW clearly define and be precise where we're better than competitors
• HMW show why this solution is better than Gemini deep research / chatGPT deep research
• HMW build a narrative that clearly explains what we do

Workshop Decisions & Next Steps

Focus Area for Sprint

Selected: Purple Path - App Onboarding & User Experience

Rationale:

The HMW voting reveals a 50/50 split between Marketing/Positioning and Product/UX concerns:

The Product/UX clusters received nearly double the votes when counted together. The purple path (app experience) aligns with all 13 of these votes, while the yellow path (website/landing) aligns with the 7 marketing votes.

Additionally, the sprint methodology (prototype → user test → iterate) is designed to validate product experiences, not marketing messaging. Sprint 3 is scoped for landing page work per the proposal.

Key Design Challenges Identified

1. Making complexity simple without losing depth
2. Building trust through the interface
3. Showing the value of research quality
4. Creating clear information hierarchy for reports
5. Enabling user control over research depth
6. Demonstrating differentiation from ChatGPT/Gemini deep research

Open Questions for Resolution

1. What is the primary ICP? (VCs, startups, crypto DAOs, accelerators, growth companies?)
2. What makes Research Tech demonstrably better than AI-native alternatives?
3. What does "success" look like in the first user session?

Appendix: Raw Workshop Artifacts

All HMW Notes (Verbatim) with Cluster Voting

Note: Red dots indicate votes. When multiple HMWs are grouped together with dots between them, they form a single voted cluster. The total dots on a cluster = total votes for that theme.

=== CLUSTER 1: COMPETITIVE DIFFERENTIATION [4 VOTES - clustered together] ===
HMW clearly define and be precise where we're better than competitors
HMW show why this solution is better than Gemini deep research / chatGPT deep research

=== CLUSTER 2: VALUE COMMUNICATION THROUGH INTERFACE [4 VOTES - clustered together] ===
HMW highlight how good the research is
HMW show the value in the complexity simplified
HMW educate and explain the complexity, quality of the product (e.g. not hallucinations, researched, transparent)
HMW make the value clear in the interface

=== STANDALONE: NARRATIVE [3 VOTES] ===
HMW build a narrative that clearly explains what we do

=== CLUSTER 3: INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE [3 VOTES - clustered together] ===
HMW + clients to... (have information hierarchy / access multiple reports)
HMW have information hierarchy
HMW create a tree of reports
HMW make the reports modular

=== STANDALONE ITEMS [2 VOTES EACH] ===
HMW build trust with the user [2 VOTES]
HMW let users control the level of research [2 VOTES]
HMW create a clear and simple interface [2 VOTES]

=== CLUSTER 4: PRODUCT ENJOYMENT [2 VOTES - duplicates clustered] ===
HMW make the product enjoyable for the client (x2 duplicate notes)

=== LOWER PRIORITY [1 VOTE EACH] ===
HMW correctly address many different clients, like VCs, startups, crypto DAOs, accelerators, foundations, non-profit
HMW show we can't be 100% accurate but still give the right value
HMW get people using the product quickly
HMW find out which business model is best for...
HMW use the feedback from existing customers for research

All Long Term Goals (Verbatim)

[2 VOTES] In two years time we have $5M ARR, strong brand, hundreds of happy customers and we are market leader when it comes to analysis of projects/ideas/ventures. We also have strong growth potential and team which can deliver it.

[1 VOTE] In two years time... the product is so good that we have huge number of stisfied clients that makes us worth $100M and Consultancies or other Corporations start to show us their interest in buying a piece of our business or the whole business

In two years' time, we will have a modular solution with multiple use-case usages, so it can work not only for investors but for anybody.

In two years time we supported dozens of enterprise level customers making their research pipelines XX procent more efficient and scalable

In two years time research tech we'll be raising a series A because they have a well defined and simple to use premium product, over layers of complexity and value, bringing in strong revenue which is customised by their different categories of users

All Sprint Questions (Verbatim)

[PRIORITIZED] Can we find what ICPs are willing to pay for?
[PRIORITIZED] Can we show unique value for clients, their will to choose our solutions over competitions
[VOTED] Can we make a product that will always be a step ahead of main players like Gemini, OpenAI, or others?
[VOTED] Can we create a product which user will prefer of chatgpt/gemini or others even if it cost much more
[VOTED] Can we interact with the right ICP and niche?
[HIGHLIGHTED] Can we show simplicity in complexity?
Can we create a product which will fit needs of many different customers from different industries
Can we... reach the scale fast enough to be fundable?
Can customers navigate the research in a fun and simple way?
Can we easily sell this product, encourage users to try it and keep customer acquisition cost reasonable
Can we enable our users to create their proprietary workflows that are so unique that even other users using our product will not be able to copy them?
Can we use feedback from the market more effectively to make better decisions
Can we build a product which works for fully automated use-cases with simple API integrations for customers wanting everything and for users with less technical knowledge
Can we...make the solution more trustworthy than other options on the market?
Can customers understand the complexity and value in the product yet use it simply?

Document created: 5 January 2026 Sprint: Zebra Design Sprint 1 / Research Tech Next: Build phase - Days 2-4