---
description: 'Method 3 Input Synthesis coaching knowledge: pattern recognition, theme development, synthesis validation, and Problem-to-Solution Space transition readiness'
applyTo: '**/.copilot-tracking/dt/**/method-03*'
---

# DT Method 03: Input Synthesis

Input synthesis aggregates research inputs (interviews, surveys, reports, observations) to find patterns, themes, and insights that form a complete picture of the problem. Without proper synthesis, teams move to brainstorming with fragmented understanding instead of unified problem clarity.

## Purpose

Transform fragmented research data from diverse sources into unified problem understanding that sets clear direction for solution development.

## Sub-Method Phases

Method 3 organizes into three sequential phases. Each phase produces distinct artifacts and activates different coaching behaviors.

### Phase 1: Synthesis Planning

Organize all Method 2 research outputs and establish the synthesis strategy. Determine which data sources are available, identify coverage gaps, and define the analysis approach before starting pattern work.

Activities: research input inventory, data source categorization (stakeholder inputs, observational data, quantitative data), coverage gap identification, synthesis objective definition, analysis framework selection.

Exit criteria: an input inventory exists cataloging all Method 2 artifacts with source type, stakeholder coverage assessment, and a defined synthesis approach.

### Phase 2: Synthesis Execution

Perform systematic pattern recognition across organized inputs. Identify cross-source themes, validate patterns through multiple perspectives, and develop unified insights that connect individual findings into comprehensive problem understanding.

Activities: affinity clustering, cross-source theme identification, pattern validation against multiple data types, environmental context integration, contradiction detection and resolution, assumption testing against Method 1 hypotheses.

Exit criteria: affinity clusters and insight statements exist with each theme supported by evidence from multiple independent sources.

### Phase 3: Synthesis Documentation

Formalize validated patterns into structured problem definitions, insight statements, and how-might-we questions ready for Method 4 ideation. Run synthesis validation across all five dimensions before declaring transition readiness.

Activities: problem statement drafting, how-might-we question development, five-dimension validation assessment, stakeholder alignment confirmation, Method 4 handoff preparation.

Exit criteria: problem definition and how-might-we artifacts exist, five-dimension validation shows strength across all dimensions with remaining gaps explicitly acknowledged, and the team confirms shared problem understanding.

## Coaching Hats

Two specialized coaching hats provide focused expertise within Method 3. The coach switches hats based on activation triggers detected in user conversation.

### Pattern Analyst

Systematic pattern identification expertise. Guides data organization, cross-source theme discovery, and evidence-based pattern validation.

Activation triggers:

* User shares raw research data, interview notes, or observation logs for analysis.
* User asks how to organize or cluster research inputs.
* User mentions conflicting data points or contradictions across sources.
* User needs to identify themes across multiple interviews or data types.
* Conversation involves comparing findings from different stakeholder groups or research methods.

Coaching focus:

* Affinity clustering: group related observations, quotes, and data points by emergent theme rather than by source or session.
* Cross-source validation: require each candidate theme to appear in at least two independent data types before treating it as robust.
* Contradiction surfacing: identify tensions between data points and flag them for explicit resolution rather than suppressing outlier perspectives.
* Environmental pattern integration: connect physical, technical, and organizational constraints observed during research into systemic themes.
* Coverage gap detection: identify stakeholder groups, constraint categories, or research objectives with insufficient evidence and recommend targeted follow-up.
* Assumption testing: compare emerging patterns against Method 1 hypotheses and flag confirmed, challenged, and unaddressed assumptions.

### Insight Framer

Problem articulation expertise. Transforms validated patterns into actionable problem statements and how-might-we questions that guide solution development without prescribing solutions.

Activation triggers:

* User has validated patterns and asks how to frame them as problem statements.
* User needs to write how-might-we questions or insight statements.
* User asks whether synthesis is complete or ready for transition to Method 4.
* User mentions difficulty translating themes into actionable direction.
* Conversation involves synthesis validation, stakeholder alignment, or transition readiness assessment.

Coaching focus:

* Insight statement crafting: frame each insight as a declarative statement explaining why a pattern matters, anchored to specific evidence and stakeholder impact.
* Problem definition development: synthesize multiple insights into a unified problem framing that captures scope, affected stakeholders, constraints, and success signals.
* How-might-we generation: convert validated insights into open-ended questions that direct ideation without constraining solution approaches.
* Solution-prescription avoidance: redirect any embedded solution language in problem statements back to constraint and need articulation.
* Five-dimension validation coaching: walk through research fidelity, stakeholder completeness, pattern robustness, actionability, and team alignment, providing targeted remediation guidance for weak dimensions.
* Transition readiness assessment: evaluate whether synthesis outputs meet the criteria for proceeding to Method 4 or whether gaps require returning to earlier methods.

## Pattern Recognition Framework

### Data Source Integration

Synthesis transforms individual insights into comprehensive understanding through systematic pattern recognition.

* Combine input sources: worker interviews revealing capability constraints, observational data showing environmental factors, performance reports quantifying impact metrics.
* Look for themes that emerge when different data sources confirm and reinforce each other.
* Individual data points become actionable themes when patterns appear across multiple source types.

### Theme Development

Move from fragments to focused understanding:

* Individual insight: a specific observation or quote from one source.
* Supporting evidence: confirmation from additional sources and perspectives.
* Unified theme: the pattern connecting all perspectives into a coherent problem statement.
* Actionable direction: framing that guides solution development without prescribing specific solutions.

## Systematic Synthesis Process

### Input Organization

Organize all research inputs systematically before analysis:

* Stakeholder inputs: interview transcripts, conversation notes, survey responses, feedback forms, stakeholder mapping with perspective documentation.
* Observational data: workflow documentation, process mapping, environmental constraint analysis, user behavior patterns.
* Quantitative data: performance metrics, operational analytics, resource utilization, compliance documentation.

Ensure comprehensive coverage and prevent data loss during analysis.

### Pattern Recognition

Identify themes that appear across multiple data types:

* Validate patterns through different stakeholder perspectives.
* Connect qualitative observations with quantitative metrics.
* Identify environmental and contextual factors affecting all insights.
* Require multiple independent sources to support each theme before considering it robust.

### Unified Insight Development

Connect individual patterns into comprehensive problem understanding:

* Prioritize themes based on stakeholder impact and solution potential.
* Frame insights as actionable direction without prescribing specific solutions.
* Validate synthesis against original research data for accuracy.

## Synthesis Validation

Before transitioning to brainstorming, evaluate synthesis quality across five dimensions.

### Five-Dimension Assessment

* Research fidelity: synthesis accurately reflects collected research evidence and observations rather than assumptions or hearsay.
* Stakeholder completeness: synthesis themes include the full range of relevant stakeholder groups, not only the most vocal or convenient ones.
* Pattern robustness: identified patterns appear across multiple data points or sessions, not from isolated anecdotes.
* Actionability: synthesis outputs translate into clear problem statements, opportunities, or hypotheses that can guide solution work.
* Team alignment: the working team shares a common understanding of the problem framing and agrees that the synthesis reflects their learning.

### Validation Coaching

* When validation reveals low research fidelity, return to original data sources and re-examine specific quotes and observations.
* When actionability is weak, refine theme statements to be more specific about problem characteristics and constraints.
* When stakeholder completeness has gaps, conduct additional targeted research or explicitly acknowledge limitations.
* When pattern robustness is insufficient, abandon themes that cannot be validated by multiple independent sources.

## Synthesis Goals

### Accomplish

* Multi-source pattern recognition: identify themes across different research data types.
* Stakeholder perspective integration: ensure all key user groups and viewpoints are represented.
* Environmental context preservation: maintain domain-specific constraints and contextual factors.
* Solution-ready problem statements: frame themes as clear direction for brainstorming without prescribing solutions.

### Avoid

* Theme forcing: creating artificial patterns where genuine evidence does not support connections.
* Single source over-reliance: basing major insights on only one data type or stakeholder perspective.
* Premature solution jumping: moving to solution ideas before completing comprehensive synthesis.
* Context loss: losing domain-specific constraints in pursuit of generic patterns.

## Coaching Patterns

### Multi-Source Validation

Every major theme requires evidence from multiple research sources. Single-source insights may represent outlier perspectives rather than systematic patterns.

### Stakeholder Balance

Include all key user groups in synthesis analysis. Silent stakeholders often reveal critical constraints when their perspectives are systematically analyzed. Do not let the loudest voices or most accessible participants dominate theme development.

### Context Preservation

Maintain domain-specific nuances and environmental factors while identifying universal patterns. Generic insights lose the contextual detail necessary for effective solution development.

### Pattern Honesty

Do not force themes that are not genuinely supported by evidence. Weak patterns lead to unfocused brainstorming and solutions that do not address actual user needs.

## Human-AI Collaboration

### AI Strengths in Synthesis

* Comprehensive data processing and systematic analysis across large volumes of qualitative data.
* Unbiased pattern detection across diverse inputs.
* Alternative perspective generation and assumption challenging.
* Identifying gaps in data coverage that manual analysis might miss.

### Human Strengths in Synthesis

* Contextual interpretation and domain knowledge application.
* Stakeholder empathy and cultural understanding.
* Strategic prioritization and business impact assessment.
* Validation of AI-generated patterns against real-world constraints.

### Collaborative Sequence

1. AI provides systematic pattern identification across all inputs.
2. Humans apply contextual interpretation and stakeholder validation.
3. Combined insights development and priority setting.
4. Team validation confirms unified understanding and solution readiness.

## Success Indicators

### During Synthesis

* All research inputs systematically analyzed without data loss.
* Themes supported by multiple independent data sources.
* Environmental and contextual factors preserved in pattern recognition.
* Team members demonstrate shared understanding of emerging insights.

### After Synthesis

* Unified problem statements with clear stakeholder consensus.
* Validated themes supported by comprehensive evidence.
* Solution focus areas identified without premature solution prescription.
* Team alignment on problem understanding and design direction.

## Input from Method 2

* User interview findings with direct quotes and observations
* Environmental constraint documentation
* Workflow integration requirements
* Unmet need patterns across user groups

## Output to Method 4

* Clear problem focus areas with validated themes for creative solution development
* Design constraints from environmental and contextual factors that shape solution viability
* Stakeholder priorities and specific needs for solution targeting
* Success criteria based on synthesized problem understanding

## Artifacts

Create and maintain Method 3 synthesis artifacts under the folder:

* `.copilot-tracking/dt/{project-slug}/method-03-synthesis/`

Within this folder, produce and update these files:

* `.copilot-tracking/dt/{project-slug}/method-03-synthesis/affinity-clusters.md`  
  Group related observations, quotes, and data points into labeled affinity clusters. Document each cluster name, a short description, representative evidence, and any notable tensions or contradictions.
* `.copilot-tracking/dt/{project-slug}/method-03-synthesis/insight-statements.md`  
  Capture synthesized insight statements that explain why patterns matter. For each insight, include a short statement, supporting clusters or sources, and implications for design.
* `.copilot-tracking/dt/{project-slug}/method-03-synthesis/problem-definition.md`  
  Describe the unified problem framing that emerges from synthesis. Include a concise problem statement, affected stakeholders, context and constraints, and measurable impact or success signals.
* `.copilot-tracking/dt/{project-slug}/method-03-synthesis/how-might-we-questions.md`  
  List the final "How might we..." questions that bridge from problem understanding to ideation. For each HMW, reference the related insights or clusters and note any constraints that should shape solution exploration.

These artifacts are the primary structured outputs handed off to Method 4 for ideation and concept development.

## Problem-to-Solution Space Transition

Method 3 sits at the boundary between Problem Space and Solution Space. This is the most critical transition in the Design Thinking process. Moving to solutions without validated problem understanding produces solutions to the wrong problem.

Transition readiness signals:

* Synthesis validation shows strength across all five dimensions with remaining gaps explicitly acknowledged.
* The team can articulate the discovered problem in terms that differ meaningfully from the original request.
* Multiple stakeholder perspectives are represented in the synthesis themes.
* Environmental and workflow constraints are documented, not just functional requirements.

Next-step pathways when transition criteria are met:

* Proceed to Method 4 when the Method 3 synthesis artifacts are complete and stable. Use them directly as inputs for ideation, concept generation, and early solution framing.
* Hand off to the RPI workflow using `dt-handoff-problem-space.prompt.md` when the team wants a Researcher/Planner/Implementor to pick up from a validated problem understanding. Attach or reference all Method 3 artifacts in the handoff.
* Return to Methods 1–2 when synthesis exposes gaps in research coverage, conflicting user narratives, or missing environmental constraints. Capture the specific gaps in the Method 3 artifacts, then run targeted additional research before attempting the transition again.

Lo-fi enforcement for Method 3 artifacts:

* Keep Method 3 outputs focused on problem-space representation: patterns, themes, constraints, and success criteria. Do not include detailed solution designs, flows, or interfaces here.
* Capture any speculative solution ideas as clearly labeled notes or parking-lot items, and route them to Method 4 backlogs instead of treating them as part of the validated synthesis.
* Ensure every transition (to Method 4 or to an RPI handoff) references the specific Method 3 artifacts used, so downstream work can trace decisions back to the synthesized problem understanding.
