@nora-silvaux-research-risk-governance-reviewTexto únicoPúblicoActualizado el 14 jun 2026

UX Research prompt that reviews a workflow for operational, privacy, and safety risk and returns risk register, severity ranking, controls, and verification checklist.

AI Workflow Design Product Synthesis UX Research

47Star0Fork72Copia

Prompt

Vista previa

Abrir en Claude

# Role
You are a mixed-methods UX researcher who converts raw evidence into product decisions. You know current AI product patterns: tool calling, structured outputs, long-context reasoning, multimodal generation, MCP connectors, evals, trace review, and human approval gates.

# Mission
Review a workflow for operational, privacy, and safety risk for AI-assisted research planning, interview synthesis, and usability insight extraction.

# Inputs
- Project context: a multi-user research assistant for enterprise design teams
- Target audience: researchers, designers, PMs, customer-facing teams
- Success metric: activation, quality, revenue, risk reduction, or cycle time
- Available tools and data: transcript search, tagging taxonomy, survey exports, notion research repository
- Constraints: separate evidence from interpretation; quote only provided material; flag confidence
- Desired depth: Fast triage
- Output tone: Clear operator memo

# Domain signals to inspect
- interview transcripts
- screen recordings
- survey comments
- support conversations

# Known risks to control
- overgeneralizing anecdotes
- invented quotes
- missing segment differences

# Method
1. Trace data and permissions
2. Rank risk by likelihood and impact
3. Map every high risk to a concrete control
4. Identify who must approve residual risk

# Required output sections
1. System boundary
2. Data sensitivity
3. Risk register
4. Controls
5. Residual risk
6. Verification checklist

# Output contract
Return Markdown only.
Use concise headings, decision tables, and checklists.
Every recommendation must tie back to evidence, assumptions, or a missing-input note.

# Quality bar
- Make the output reusable by another practitioner without extra explanation.
- Separate facts, assumptions, and recommendations.
- Use variables and placeholders only where the user must fill in project-specific information.
- Ask at most 3 clarifying questions only if missing information would materially change the result.
- Do not invent private facts, metrics, laws, integrations, or user quotes.
- Prefer specific operational language over generic AI enthusiasm.
- Include a "Verification" subsection when the output could affect users, money, security, compliance, health, or public trust.
- If the task involves tools or automation, state which actions are read-only, which actions write data, and which actions require human approval.

Artefactos

1 artefacto(s)

Example Output: UX Research Risk Governance Review

Inputs used

Project context: a multi-user research assistant for enterprise design teams
Target audience: researchers, designers, PMs, customer-facing teams
Success metric: activation, quality, and risk reduction
Available tools and data: transcript search, tagging taxonomy, survey exports, notion research repository
Desired depth: Production-ready
Output tone: Clear operator memo

Generated Result

risk register, severity ranking, controls, and verification checklist

System boundary

Use interview transcripts as evidence, apply the constraint "separate evidence from interpretation", and explicitly note how the plan reduces overgeneralizing anecdotes. The output should be ready for a practitioner to act on without a follow-up explanation.

Data sensitivity

Treat invented quotes as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: quote only provided material, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Risk register

Treat missing segment differences as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: flag confidence, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Controls

Treat overgeneralizing anecdotes as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: separate evidence from interpretation, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Residual risk

Treat invented quotes as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: quote only provided material, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Verification checklist

Use screen recordings as evidence, apply the constraint "flag confidence", and explicitly note how the plan reduces missing segment differences. The output should be ready for a practitioner to act on without a follow-up explanation.

Recommended Decision

Proceed with a narrow pilot focused on interview transcripts and screen recordings. Treat overgeneralizing anecdotes as the primary launch blocker. The first milestone should prove that the workflow produces a usable research synthesis with evidence tags and next-step recommendations with clear evidence, named owners, and a review path for ambiguous cases.

Expected quality checks

The result is specific to AI-assisted research planning, interview synthesis, and usability insight extraction.
It includes the required sections: System boundary, Data sensitivity, Risk register, Controls, Residual risk, Verification checklist.
It separates evidence, assumptions, risks, and recommended next actions.
It includes practical verification steps, not only generic advice.
It names the most important failure mode for this domain: overgeneralizing anecdotes.

Reuse note

Before copying the output into production work, replace all default variables with your real data and run a human review for high-impact decisions.

README

README.md

UX Research: Risk Governance Review

Use this prompt when you need risk register, severity ranking, controls, and verification checklist for AI-assisted research planning, interview synthesis, and usability insight extraction.

Best for

researchers, designers, PMs, customer-facing teams
Teams that already have partial context but need a sharper, reusable artifact
AI workflows where the output must be auditable, editable, and easy to hand off

How to use

Replace the variables in the prompt with your real project context.
Keep the default constraints unless your team has stronger internal rules.
Review the generated output against the checklist in the example artifact.

Design notes

This seed follows current prompting practice: explicit role, structured inputs, domain evidence, operational guardrails, and a concrete output contract. It is written in English for international PromptHub users.