Turn conflicting customer interviews into one SaaS decision

Use this after you have source-level notes: an interview, an authorized excerpt, or another traceable record. Give every person one record before looking for a pattern. Ask which near-term decision the evidence should change, such as whether to narrow an audience, investigate a workflow, or run a small test.

One person is one source for a theme, even if they mention it three times. Repetition can make a quote easier to understand, but it does not create three independent customers.

A matrix reveals whether the same label hides different situations. Keep the row short enough to trace back to the individual record; add a source reference instead of replacing it with a count.

Do not add Priya’s quote, behavior, and workaround as three votes. They are three details from one source. The disagreement with Mateo and Nia is useful evidence, not a reason to erase their records.

Before synthesis, make the individual record useful enough that another person can see what was said, in which setting, and what it can actually support. Do not turn an interpretation into a quote.

• The original source reference and date, so the statement can be checked in context.
• The role, setting, and trigger for the task — not a broad persona label alone.
• A short authorized excerpt, or a precise paraphrase clearly marked as one.
• A specific past action, timing, or consequence; keep future intent in a separate field.
• The current tool, manual process, or decision to do nothing.
• What makes the problem smaller, solved, or irrelevant for this person.
• The missing fact that would change how much weight the record deserves.

Use the existing customer discovery worksheet to make those source-level records before you aggregate them here.

These three labels prevent a small interview set from sounding more certain than it is. They point to different next actions.

The example below does not conclude that all recruiters need a tracker. It turns the narrow, conflicting records into a decision that can be tested without claiming more certainty than the material supports.

If the records do not answer the decision, write “insufficient evidence” and collect the smallest missing comparison. A Decision Note can recommend no build, a narrower audience, or a different question.

This complete template is available without sign-up. Start from individual, authorized records; make every source traceable before reducing it to a theme.

Decision I need to make:
Target role and situation:
Records included (one row per independent person):

Theme: 
- Participant / source / date:
- Role and context:
- Short authorized excerpt or marked paraphrase:
- Past behavior or consequence:
- Current alternative:
- Counterevidence or condition where this does not apply:
- Unknown / not mentioned:

Supporting evidence across distinct participants:
- 

Challenging evidence across distinct participants:
- 

What applies only in this situation:
What I cannot conclude yet:

Current decision:
One next test:
The observation that would change this decision:
Review date: