References

A catalog of situation types, signal-to-situation mappings, and common situations by product context.

This section is a lookup resource. Use it when reviewing signals to recognize which type of situation may be emerging, when writing a situation statement to check it against known patterns, or when deciding which lens to apply first.

Situation Types

Situations cluster into recognizable types. Knowing the type helps teams apply the right lens, frame the right questions, and connect the situation to the right UX metrics.

<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="min-width: 508px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="width: 154px;"><col style="width: 154px;"><col style="width: 175px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Situation Type</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">What It Describes</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Common Trigger</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">Primary Lenses</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Comprehension breakdown</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Users can interact with the product but cannot interpret what it is telling them or why</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Information appears before users have the context to evaluate it</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Type (attitudinal vs. behavioral mismatch), By Stage (proxy vs. analytics gap)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Trust gap</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Users understand what the product is asking but do not believe it enough to act</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Recommendations or decisions appear without sufficient evidence or explanation</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Type (satisfaction vs. completion), By Engagement (needs vs. behavior layer)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Effort mismatch</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">The cost of completing a task exceeds what users expect or are willing to absorb</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">A workflow requires more steps, decisions, or cognitive load than the user anticipated</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Type (performance), By Time (leading friction signals)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Relevance failure</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Users engage with the product but do not see it as connected to their actual goal or situation</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Product experience addresses a generic need rather than the specific context the user is in</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Engagement (needs layer), By Type (attitudinal vs. behavioral)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Habit formation gap</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Users adopt the product initially but do not build it into their workflow over time</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Early value is visible but not reinforced in subsequent sessions</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Engagement (activity layer), By Time (lagging indicators)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Expectation mismatch</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">What users expect the product to do and what it actually does diverge at a critical moment</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Users arrive with a mental model shaped by prior experience, marketing, or context that the product does not match</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Type (attitudinal), By Stage (predictive vs. proxy gap)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Decision loop</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Users reach a decision point and repeatedly return to it without progressing, cycling through the same information</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Insufficient evidence, unclear options, or missing context at a high-stakes decision point</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Type (behavioral), By Time (leading vs. lagging), By Stage (analytics)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Organizational blind spot</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Teams consistently miss or dismiss the same signals across reviews, creating a gap between evidence and decisions</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Stakeholder assumptions override collected signals at key decision points</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Stage (proxy vs. analytics), By Type (contradictory signals)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Signal credibility breakdown</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">AI-generated outputs, automated reports, or aggregated metrics move faster than teams can evaluate their quality</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="154">Production volume accelerates while the team's ability to verify accuracy does not</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="175">By Stage (proxy vs. analytics), By Time (leading vs. lagging)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Signal-to-Situation Mapping

Different signal patterns point toward different situation types. This table maps the most common signal combinations to the situations they typically indicate. Use it when signals are visible but the situation is not yet named.

<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="min-width: 437px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="width: 149px;"><col style="width: 263px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Signal Pattern</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Likely Situation Type</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">What to Check Next</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">High completion rate + low trust or satisfaction scores</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Comprehension breakdown or trust gap</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Type. Check whether users understand what they completed or are finishing mechanically without confidence.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Strong desirability scores + low adoption or return visits</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Habit formation gap or relevance failure</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Engagement. Check whether the needs layer is holding but the activity layer is collapsing after the first session.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Positive prototype results + weak production analytics</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Expectation mismatch or effort mismatch</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Stage. Check whether the controlled testing environment is not capturing the real-world conditions users face.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Leading indicators missed lagging outcomes consistently</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Structural situation, not temporary friction</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Time. The situation is baked into the experience, not a learning curve. Look for the underlying condition driving the gap.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Users repeatedly returning to earlier steps without progressing</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Decision loop or trust gap</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Type and By Stage. Check whether users lack evidence to move forward or whether the decision point itself is unclear.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">High engagement metrics + declining retention over time</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Habit formation gap</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Engagement and By Time. Check whether early engagement reflects genuine need alignment or novelty that does not sustain.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Metrics and interview feedback pointing in opposite directions</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Expectation mismatch or organizational blind spot</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Type. Contradictory signals usually mean users say one thing and do another — or teams are measuring the wrong thing.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Consistent drop-off at the same workflow point across segments</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Effort mismatch or comprehension breakdown</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Stage and By Type. Check whether the drop-off is a performance issue, a comprehension issue, or both.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Low engagement despite relevant content or strong product-market fit signals</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="149">Relevance failure or effort mismatch</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="263">Apply By Engagement. Check whether the product is addressing the right need but in the wrong context or at the wrong moment.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Situations by Product Context

Situations appear across all product areas, but the conditions that create them vary by context. This catalog organizes common situations by the product moment where they most frequently emerge. Use it to cross-check a named situation against known patterns in that context.

Onboarding

Onboarding situations are among the most common and the most misread. Teams frequently optimize for completion rates while the real situation is about confidence, not task success.

<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="min-width: 459px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="width: 218px;"><col style="width: 216px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Situation</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Recurring Condition</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="216">Common Misread</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Confidence breakdown at setup</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Users complete onboarding mechanically but leave without enough understanding to act on what the product is telling them</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="216">Teams improve completion flows instead of addressing the comprehension gap that precedes the first meaningful decision</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Premature recommendation exposure</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Recommendations or next steps appear before users have the context to evaluate them, creating hesitation and avoidance</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="216">Teams interpret low recommendation engagement as disinterest rather than insufficient setup context</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Value invisibility</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Users finish setup without understanding what the product will do for them or why it matters in their specific situation</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="216">Teams treat low early engagement as a product-market fit problem rather than a framing or context problem</td></tr></tbody></table>

Adoption

Adoption situations typically involve the gap between initial use and integrated use. Users try the product but do not build it into how they work.

<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="min-width: 460px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="width: 217px;"><col style="width: 218px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Situation</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Recurring Condition</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Common Misread</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">First-session novelty collapse</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Users engage strongly in the first session but do not return because the product did not connect to a recurring need in their workflow</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Teams celebrate first-session engagement metrics without checking whether early signals predict return behavior</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Feature awareness gap</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Users repeatedly miss or ignore features that would address their situation because discovery is unclear or poorly timed</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Teams add more features or surface notifications rather than addressing the situational context that would make the feature relevant</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Workflow integration friction</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">The product requires users to change existing workflows in ways that cost more effort than the product returns in value</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Teams interpret slow adoption as a motivation problem rather than an effort mismatch between the product and the user's existing context</td></tr></tbody></table>

Retention

Retention situations are often habit formation failures disguised as satisfaction problems. Users who are satisfied but not retained are experiencing a different situation than users who are dissatisfied.

<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="min-width: 460px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="width: 218px;"><col style="width: 217px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Situation</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Recurring Condition</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Common Misread</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Satisfied but non-returning</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Users rate the product positively but do not return because it does not connect to a recurring need in their situation</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Teams treat high satisfaction scores as retention signals and miss the habit formation gap entirely</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Re-entry friction</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Returning users face a reorientation cost each session that increases over time, eroding the habit before it forms</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Teams focus on new user experience while the returning user experience quietly degrades</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Value decay</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">The product delivered value early but that value has not grown or evolved with the user's situation, creating a relevance gap over time</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Teams attribute churn to pricing or competition rather than a situation where the product stopped meeting the user's evolving context</td></tr></tbody></table>

Decision and Evaluation

Decision situations appear when users reach moments of commitment or comparison and the conditions around them are not sufficient to support forward movement.

<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="min-width: 460px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="width: 217px;"><col style="width: 218px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Situation</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Recurring Condition</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Common Misread</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Comparison paralysis</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Users cannot move forward because the product presents options without giving them the context to evaluate the difference</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Teams add more options or personalization rather than addressing the information gap that makes comparison impossible</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Evidence deficit</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">Users want to act but do not have enough credible information to justify the decision to themselves or to others</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Teams improve visual design or messaging rather than the underlying evidence that would support the decision</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Stakeholder misalignment</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="217">The user understands the product but cannot get organizational buy-in because the product does not speak to the concerns of other decision-makers in their context</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="218">Teams treat this as an individual user problem rather than a situational condition shaped by the organizational context the user operates in</td></tr></tbody></table>

Situation Strength Checklist

Before carrying a situation into Measure, teams should be able to answer yes to most of these questions. A situation that cannot satisfy at least four of the five is an observation, not yet a named situation.

<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="min-width: 305px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="width: 280px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Question</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="280">Why It Matters</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Does the situation appear in signals from at least two different sources?</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="280">A single source can reflect a collection artifact. Convergence across sources increases confidence that the condition is real.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Do at least two lenses point to the same underlying condition?</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="280">One lens showing a pattern is an observation. Two lenses converging on the same condition is a situation.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Does the situation appear across more than one audience segment?</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="280">A condition visible only in one segment may be an audience-specific finding rather than a recurring situation.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Can you name all four parts: trigger, goal, friction, and what success means?</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="280">A situation without all four parts is incomplete. Missing elements usually signal that more observation or interpretation is needed.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Is the situation stable enough that a concept could be designed against it?</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="280">A named situation should be concrete enough to anchor a design response. If it is still too vague to imagine a concept, it is not ready.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Identify where decision quality breaks down

The Glare Design Assessment helps teams spot weak validation, stakeholder friction, alignment gaps, and assumptions that scale without measurable learning—so you have a clearer starting point for improvement.

About 5 minutes · Team-based · Diagnostic snapshot you can act on

Take the Design Assessment