{
  "_about": "Learnings across the corpus. The five tx_001 learnings are unchanged. lr_c01..c03 are chat answers persisted as learnings: kind=chat_answer, scope = the transcripts retrieved, generalises=true only when independent_sources >= 2. Note 'corpus_size_when_answered' - an answer given at n=3 is a different object from one given at n=100, and a re-ask should be able to say 'this changed since you last asked'.",
  "_field_guide": {
    "kind": "interpretation | ranking | risk | gate_analysis | change_over_time | hypothesis  - what sort of inference this is",
    "confidence": "Extractor's own confidence in the inference GIVEN the evidence. Not a claim about the world.",
    "supported_by / challenged_by / context_from": "Evidence IDs. A learning with nothing in challenged_by should be viewed with suspicion, not relief.",
    "caveats": "Everything that would make a careful reader trust this less.",
    "generalises_beyond_transcript": "false unless there is evidence from more than one source. One interview never licenses a population claim."
  },
  "questions": [
    {
      "id": "q_001",
      "asked_on": "2026-09-18",
      "asked_by": "researcher",
      "question": "Is manual column remapping a problem worth solving for this team?",
      "scope": [
        "tx_001"
      ],
      "learnings": [
        "lr_001",
        "lr_002"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "q_002",
      "asked_on": "2026-09-18",
      "asked_by": "researcher",
      "question": "What would it actually take for this team to adopt a remapping tool?",
      "scope": [
        "tx_001"
      ],
      "learnings": [
        "lr_003"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "q_003",
      "asked_on": "2026-09-19",
      "asked_by": "engineering",
      "question": "Did the previous automation attempt fail for a reason a new tool would share?",
      "scope": [
        "tx_001"
      ],
      "learnings": [
        "lr_004"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "q_004",
      "asked_on": "2026-09-19",
      "asked_by": "researcher",
      "question": "Has the report timeliness problem changed over time?",
      "scope": [
        "tx_001"
      ],
      "learnings": [
        "lr_005"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "q_c01",
      "asked_on": "2026-12-12",
      "asked_by": "product lead",
      "question": "Across our interviews, would people pay for automatic column remapping?",
      "scope": [
        "tx_001",
        "tx_002",
        "tx_003"
      ],
      "via": "chat_01",
      "learnings": [
        "lr_c01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "q_c02",
      "asked_on": "2026-12-12",
      "asked_by": "researcher",
      "question": "What changed for person A between the two interviews?",
      "scope": [
        "tx_001",
        "tx_003"
      ],
      "via": "chat_02",
      "learnings": [
        "lr_c02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "q_c03",
      "asked_on": "2026-12-13",
      "asked_by": "engineering",
      "question": "How long do security reviews take, and can we avoid them?",
      "scope": [
        "tx_001",
        "tx_002",
        "tx_003"
      ],
      "via": "chat_03",
      "learnings": [
        "lr_c03"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "learnings": [
    {
      "id": "lr_001",
      "question_id": "q_001",
      "kind": "interpretation",
      "statement": "Remapping is a real, recurring cost (roughly 6-10 team-hours per week, every week), but the speaker does not experience it as the main problem. The felt problem is downstream: the report reaching directors late or incomplete.",
      "what_this_adds": "The transcript never ranks 'effort' against 'timeliness' in these terms. This learning combines the effort figures with the speaker's explicit re-ranking in turn 14 and the correction in turn 16.",
      "supported_by": [
        "ev_005",
        "ev_006",
        "ev_011",
        "ev_015",
        "ev_016",
        "ev_018"
      ],
      "challenged_by": [
        "ev_011"
      ],
      "challenged_note": "ev_011 flag: the speaker never says remapping accounts for ALL six hours. The effort attributable to remapping specifically is unknown.",
      "context_from": [
        "ev_002",
        "ev_004"
      ],
      "confidence": "medium",
      "caveats": [
        "Single interview, single speaker.",
        "Severity answer (ev_015) was given in response to a leading question; the pushback strengthens it but the framing was still supplied by the interviewer.",
        "ev_016 (directors deciding on stale numbers) is the speaker's account of third parties; basis unknown."
      ],
      "generalises_beyond_transcript": false
    },
    {
      "id": "lr_002",
      "question_id": "q_001",
      "kind": "hypothesis",
      "statement": "A remapping tool would be valued by this team for its effect on report completeness and timeliness more than for hours saved. Pitching it as 'save six hours a week' would target the thing the speaker said matters less.",
      "what_this_adds": "This is a recommendation-shaped inference. Nothing in the transcript is about how to pitch anything.",
      "supported_by": [
        "ev_015",
        "ev_016",
        "ev_018",
        "ev_028"
      ],
      "challenged_by": [],
      "challenged_note": "No evidence against it in this transcript - which is itself a caveat. The interviewer never asked 'what would you want a tool to do for you'.",
      "context_from": [
        "ev_020"
      ],
      "confidence": "low",
      "caveats": [
        "Depends on lr_001 holding.",
        "Whether a remap tool would actually reduce 'gaps' (ev_018) is unknown, because what the gaps are is unknown (see probes.json topics_not_probed)."
      ],
      "generalises_beyond_transcript": false
    },
    {
      "id": "lr_003",
      "question_id": "q_002",
      "kind": "gate_analysis",
      "statement": "Adoption would have to pass through at least three separate gates that the speaker described independently: (1) price - under ~5k/yr the speaker can approve alone, above it the director must; (2) money - no budget line is known to exist this year regardless of who approves; (3) security - if the tool touches the warehouse system, a review of unknown but reportedly multi-week duration. The speaker has expressed interest and conditional openness to a pilot, but no commitment at any gate.",
      "what_this_adds": "The transcript gives these facts across turns 18-22 without connecting them. The learning is the assembly into a dependency chain and the explicit observation that none of them is satisfied.",
      "supported_by": [
        "ev_020",
        "ev_021",
        "ev_022",
        "ev_023",
        "ev_024",
        "ev_025",
        "ev_026",
        "ev_027"
      ],
      "challenged_by": [
        "ev_024"
      ],
      "challenged_note": "Gate (3) is conditional: ev_024 only applies if the tool connects to the warehouse system. A tool operating on already-exported files might not trigger it. This is a design question, not a settled constraint.",
      "context_from": [],
      "confidence": "medium",
      "caveats": [
        "ev_023 is hedged ('that I know of'). Budget may exist outside the speaker's visibility.",
        "ev_025 is secondhand and a single data point.",
        "The sample-exports date (ev_027) carries three stacked hedges and must not be treated as a milestone."
      ],
      "generalises_beyond_transcript": false
    },
    {
      "id": "lr_004",
      "question_id": "q_003",
      "kind": "risk",
      "statement": "The previous script failed on input size, specifically on the fleet export. Any new tool has the same failure mode as an open risk until the fleet export's actual size is known and tested. The threshold is unknown; the speaker did not say and was not asked.",
      "what_this_adds": "Reframes a past event as a forward-looking test criterion. The transcript describes what happened; it does not say 'test this'.",
      "supported_by": [
        "ev_012",
        "ev_013",
        "ev_014"
      ],
      "challenged_by": [],
      "challenged_note": "Nothing in the transcript says the failure was inherent to file size rather than to that script's implementation. 'Choked' is the speaker's word; the actual failure (memory? timeout? crash?) is unknown.",
      "context_from": [
        "ev_007"
      ],
      "confidence": "medium",
      "caveats": [
        "One attempt, one script, described in one sentence.",
        "The team may have dropped it for reasons beyond the size failure that were not mentioned."
      ],
      "generalises_beyond_transcript": false,
      "open_questions_raised": [
        "What is the typical and maximum size of the fleet export?",
        "What did the script actually do when it 'choked'?"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "lr_005",
      "question_id": "q_004",
      "kind": "change_over_time",
      "statement": "Before roughly spring 2026 the report was late about once a month. A hard Friday 3 p.m. cutoff policy then converted lateness into incompleteness: the report now always ships on time but sometimes with gaps. The underlying cause (manual, effort-heavy preparation) was not addressed by the policy; its symptom was moved.",
      "what_this_adds": "The 'symptom moved, cause unchanged' reading is an inference. The speaker described the before and after; they did not characterise the policy as a non-solution.",
      "supported_by": [
        "ev_017",
        "ev_018",
        "ev_019"
      ],
      "challenged_by": [],
      "challenged_note": "The speaker may regard the policy as an improvement; they did not say either way.",
      "context_from": [
        "ev_016",
        "ev_005",
        "ev_011"
      ],
      "confidence": "medium",
      "caveats": [
        "'Gaps' is undefined. If gaps are trivial, the policy may have genuinely solved the problem the directors cared about.",
        "Timeline for the policy change is approximate (ev_018 flag).",
        "ev_017 is superseded and is cited here only as the origin of the corrected figure in ev_019."
      ],
      "generalises_beyond_transcript": false,
      "tracking_note": "If this person or team is interviewed again, ev_018 is the baseline to compare against: has the cutoff held, and what do gaps consist of now?"
    },
    {
      "id": "lr_c01",
      "question_id": "q_c01",
      "kind": "chat_answer",
      "statement": "Willingness to pay for automatic remapping splits by in-house scripting capacity: the org whose script failed is close to buying (pilot done, 8k quote, funds located, unsigned); the org whose script works says no and would pay for reconciliation instead. n=2 organisations - a pattern to test, not a finding.",
      "what_this_adds": "The segmentation variable (scripting capacity) is nowhere in the transcripts; it is the synthesis across xr_11 and xr_13.",
      "supported_by": [
        "ev_020",
        "ev_201",
        "ev_209",
        "ev_210",
        "ev_211",
        "ev_112",
        "ev_106",
        "ev_113"
      ],
      "challenged_by": [
        "ev_212",
        "ev_023"
      ],
      "challenged_note": "Even the 'close to buying' case has no signature and a self-discounted date; and tx_001 said no budget line existed.",
      "context_from": [
        "ev_021",
        "ev_013",
        "ev_014"
      ],
      "confidence": "low",
      "caveats": [
        "Two organisations.",
        "Nobody has been asked about price.",
        "Whether org_B's script has ever broken is unknown."
      ],
      "generalises_beyond_transcript": true,
      "corpus_size_when_answered": 3,
      "hypotheses_touched": [
        "H2"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "lr_c02",
      "question_id": "q_c02",
      "kind": "chat_answer",
      "statement": "For person_A over 87 days: effort down ~1/3 (6h->4h weekly, 10h->7h month-end) after the remap pilot; gaps persist with an upstream cause (late fleet export) the tool cannot address; the security review took 9 weeks firsthand vs 6 weeks secondhand; the drift cause moved from guess to reported; purchase advanced to 'funds located, unsigned'; Priya left; directors asked a third time for a daily report.",
      "what_this_adds": "The 'removed a third of the effort and none of the completeness problem' reading. The speaker described each change; they did not draw that line.",
      "supported_by": [
        "ev_005",
        "ev_202",
        "ev_006",
        "ev_203",
        "ev_018",
        "ev_205",
        "ev_025",
        "ev_206",
        "ev_207",
        "ev_010",
        "ev_208",
        "ev_023",
        "ev_210",
        "ev_211",
        "ev_008",
        "ev_213",
        "ev_028",
        "ev_214",
        "ev_026",
        "ev_201"
      ],
      "challenged_by": [],
      "challenged_note": "Single source by construction (longitudinal). The gap-cause 'change' may be a definition rather than a change - tx_001 never said what gaps were.",
      "context_from": [
        "ev_011",
        "ev_027"
      ],
      "confidence": "medium",
      "caveats": [
        "One person; both interviews by the same interviewer.",
        "ev_208's basis is unclear.",
        "ev_202 was framed by the interviewer's recall of the earlier figure."
      ],
      "generalises_beyond_transcript": false,
      "corpus_size_when_answered": 3,
      "open_questions_raised": [
        "What is the remaining ~4h/week made of? (fu_013)"
      ],
      "hypotheses_touched": [
        "H1",
        "H3",
        "H4"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "lr_c03",
      "question_id": "q_c03",
      "kind": "chat_answer",
      "statement": "Security review duration is known from one organisation only (6 weeks secondhand, 9 weeks firsthand including queue time). Both organisations gate the review on direct connection to a core system, and one states file-only tools are exempt - so a file-based architecture may avoid the review entirely.",
      "what_this_adds": "The architectural implication. Neither speaker was talking about product design.",
      "supported_by": [
        "ev_024",
        "ev_114",
        "ev_206",
        "ev_207"
      ],
      "challenged_by": [
        "ev_025"
      ],
      "challenged_note": "ev_025 gives a shorter figure but is secondhand and about a different review; it weakens any single-number claim about duration.",
      "context_from": [],
      "confidence": "medium",
      "caveats": [
        "Duration: n=1 org.",
        "Whether the org_A pilot's review was triggered by its architecture is unknown (fu_009)."
      ],
      "generalises_beyond_transcript": true,
      "corpus_size_when_answered": 3,
      "hypotheses_touched": [
        "H3"
      ]
    }
  ]
}