Research Guard questionnaire-review POC — run 2

Raw source preview

Raw, unprocessed file text shown below.

---
title: "Research Guard questionnaire-review POC — run 2"
status: processed
source_type: iterative prototype test
session_date: 2026-04-02
duration: "1h 02m 55s"
participants:
  - Danny Bowles
  - Desmond Leo
product_area: "Research Guard"
tags: [research-guard, questionnaire-review, prototype-test, iteration, internal-practitioner]
---

# Research Guard questionnaire-review POC — run 2

## Source file

- [questionnaire-reviewer-poc-run-2.docx](./questionnaire-reviewer-poc-run-2.docx) — original Microsoft Teams transcript export.

## Evidence relevant to launch

- Danny explained that researchers often adapt a previous questionnaire rather than begin with a blank page (2:09–2:19), an important workflow constraint.
- He praised several higher-value prompts, including a “really important question” about retaining open ends (57:21), and described the revised flow as “cool” (1:00:41).
- He said the initial review of the questionnaire's most important challenges was useful and very good (1:01:07).
- He still wanted the system to collect the time limit explicitly and prioritise important, removable and protected questions before getting into question-level mechanics (1:00:41–1:02:14).

## What this supports

There was a documented second iteration after critical feedback, using a real questionnaire and an experienced researcher. The session sharpened Research Guard toward prioritised, strategic review.

## What this does not prove

This remains an internal, assisted prototype test. It does not establish production readiness, independent demand, payment, time saved or parity with senior review.