01
IN
What has to be in front of you before this can start at all. Who supplies it, what it looks like when it turns up wrong, and what you do then.
It’s what you get when you ask the person who’s done the job for fifteen years how they decide. We get the rest of it onto paper, in their words.
01The problem
Ask someone who has done a job for fifteen years how they decide which orders to turn away, and you will get “you just know”. They are not being difficult. The rule stopped feeling like a decision a long time ago. It runs the way changing gear runs, below the level anyone narrates.
So every questionnaire sent to that person comes back with the half of the job that still feels like decisions. The expensive half stays exactly where it was: the exceptions, the judgement calls, the thing everyone in the building knows and nobody has ever written down. Then it turns up as a change request.
People narrate the process as it is supposed to work. The paperwork records how it actually works. The gap between the two is the whole job.
02The technique
So we arrive with guesses. Deliberately specific ones, about your work, that you can accept, reject or put right.
The open question
“How do you handle stock that arrives in boxes?”
“Depends, really. Bit of everything.”
The wrong guess
“I would assume a box marked twelve always has twelve in it. Is that fair?”
“God, no. Not from that supplier. We open every one of theirs and count them, and if it is short we photograph it before it goes on the shelf, because otherwise…”
A wrong guess pulls the sharpest correction of the session. That second answer contains three rules, a supplier exception and a photograph nobody would have thought to mention.
03The spine
It is the shape of any working system, said so that someone who has never written software can hold it in their head. The conversation still wanders, and that is where the good material is. The four moves are for filing what comes back, not for policing it.
01
What has to be in front of you before this can start at all. Who supplies it, what it looks like when it turns up wrong, and what you do then.
02
What happens to it, and the rules that govern that, including the ones hiding behind the word “normally”.
03
What comes out, in what form, and who is on the other end of it expecting something specific.
04
If this handed you a finished result, what would you look at first to decide whether to trust it?
CHECK is the one everyone skips, and it is where the expensive mistakes live. That last question, what would you look at first to decide whether to trust it, surfaces validation rules nothing else reaches.
04The delivery
A briefing you run in your own time and send back as a document. Good if you live in a chat window and are hard to pin down for an hour.
We sit with you, or with whoever holds the knowledge, and do the typing. The right default for anyone who would find “go to this site and paste this in” faintly bewildering.
A printed sheet for your shop floor, your site visit, your warehouse aisle. Somewhere a screen is the wrong instrument and a clipboard is a familiar object.
You are in the room while the thing is being built, relaying answers straight into the work. No handoff at all.
Connect the AI assistant you already use, and it interviews you our way: the same questions, the same discipline, whenever suits you. It saves a brief here as you talk, and you send that to us when it says what you mean. Create a free account to connect yours.
We choose the shape from whoever holds the knowledge, not from what is convenient to produce. A beautiful kit nobody opens is worth less than a scrappy conversation that actually happens.
05Before anything gets built
Quoting, scheduling, invoicing, stock, bookings. There is usually a mature product already doing the job for a small monthly fee, and building a worse version of it is a real risk. We will say so out loud, once, and then respect the answer. Plenty of good reasons survive it.
Then the part that is actually useful: trial the off-the-shelf option for a fortnight, because the reasons you reject it are the requirements document.
That is a specification, reached faster and far more concretely than any interview would manage, and grounded in something you have actually put your hands on.
06Where it stops
Someone doing the job should read it and say “yes, that is our process”. Someone building should read the same document and know what to build. Those two are in tension less often than people assume. It carries the four moves, what is in scope and what is deliberately not, and the open questions, each with a name against it and a date.
What it does not carry is a data model, a stack or a timeline. Those are the next job. Deciding them before the person with the answers has been asked feels enormously helpful and reads as competence, but it puts a set of decisions in writing on behalf of someone nobody has spoken to, and written-down decisions get defended rather than examined.
07Three ways to ask
A line about who holds the knowledge and what you are trying to get built. It opens as an email in your own account, ready to send.
Pick a time that suits you. No preparation needed: bring the thing nobody can give you a straight answer on, and we will work out between us whether it is a conversation, a printed sheet or a session with the person who knows.
Already work with an AI assistant like Claude or ChatGPT? Create a free account and connect it. It interviews you the way we would and builds the brief here as you talk. When it says what you mean, you send it to us.
Free, and only this needs an account. The note and the booking page never will.
Already have one? Sign in