Skip to content

User Context Briefing (CQ)

Owner: Vi | Updated: 2026-02-05

Purpose

Devs must understand WHO they're building for, not just WHAT to build. Without user empathy, devs interpret everything through their own lens and build the wrong thing.

The problem: Devs have never seen users, never talked to them, never listened to what they actually say. They build based on assumptions, not reality.


Why This Matters

Without User Context With User Context
"I think users want X" "I heard a user say they need X"
Build for imaginary user Build for real user
Interpret through own lens Interpret through user's lens
Surprised when users don't like it Already knew what users needed

The goal: Devs should be able to explain what the user is trying to do and why—not just what feature to build.


The Professor vs Student Problem

Watching someone else scope a product is easy. Doing it yourself is hard.

Professor Mode (Bad) Student Mode (Good)
Erik explains what to build Dev figures out what to build
Dev just executes specs Dev understands the "why"
If spec is unclear, dev is stuck Dev can fill in gaps themselves
No ownership Full ownership

We want devs who can think like mini product managers. That requires understanding users deeply.


Minimum User Exposure Requirements

Every CQ dev must complete these before being fully productive:

1. Watch at Least One User Interview

Options: - Sit in live on a user interview (preferred) - Watch recorded user interview (interview watch party)

What to pay attention to: - What words does the user use? - What problems do they describe? - What frustrates them? - What do they wish existed? - What surprised you?

After watching, write:

## User Interview Notes

**User type:** [Role, industry, company size]
**Main problem they have:** [In their words]
**What they're trying to accomplish:** [Goal]
**What surprised me:** [Something I didn't expect]
**How this changes how I build:** [Insight]

2. Know the User Personas

Be able to answer: - Who uses CQ? - What industry are they in? - What's their job title/role? - What are they trying to accomplish? - What's their technical level? - What do they care about most?

If you can't answer these: You're not ready to build features.

3. Understand the Domain

CQ exists in a specific domain. Devs should understand: - What problem does CQ solve? - Why do users pay for this? - What did users do before CQ? - Who are the competitors and why do users choose us?


Interview Watch Party

What: Team watches a recorded user interview together When: Monthly, or when a new dev joins Who: All CQ devs Duration: 30-60 minutes

Format: 1. Watch interview together (or key clips) 2. Discuss as a group: - What did you notice? - What surprised you? - How does this change how we build? 3. Document key insights

Output: Shared understanding of who we're building for


User Context Checklist

Before a dev is considered "ramped up" on CQ:

  • Watched at least one user interview (live or recorded)
  • Can describe the typical CQ user (role, industry, goals)
  • Can explain what problem CQ solves in user's words
  • Understands basic domain concepts
  • Has written user interview notes

Vi tracks: Which devs have completed user context requirements


Ongoing User Exposure

This isn't one-time. Devs should continuously hear from users:

Activity Frequency
Watch user interview At least once
Read user feedback summaries When shared
Ask Ryan/Erik about user context When starting new feature
Attend interview watch party When scheduled

When Starting a New Feature

Before building, dev should ask:

  1. Who is this for? (Which user persona?)
  2. What are they trying to do? (Their goal, not our feature)
  3. Why do they need this? (The problem)
  4. What do they do today? (Current workaround)
  5. How will they know it's working? (Success criteria from user POV)

If you can't answer these: Talk to Ryan or Erik before starting.


The Lens Problem

Bad: Dev interprets requirements through their own lens - "I would want this to work like..." - "I think users probably..." - "In my experience..."

Good: Dev interprets through user's lens - "The user we interviewed said..." - "Based on how users describe the problem..." - "Users in this industry typically..."

How to fix: Always tie decisions back to user evidence, not personal opinion.


Who to Ask About Users

Question Ask
What do users need? Ryan or Erik (they understand best)
How do users talk about this? User interview recordings
What's the priority? Ryan or Erik
How should UI work? Study competitors + user feedback

Note: Vi may not always have deep product understanding. For user context, go to Ryan or Erik.


Red Flags

Red Flag What It Means
"I think users want..." (with no evidence) Dev is guessing
Building feature without knowing who uses it Missing context
Surprised by user feedback Wasn't connected to users
"This is how I would use it" Own lens, not user lens
Can't explain user's problem Doesn't understand "why"

Integration with Other SOPs

SOP Connection
Pre-Build Research Research includes understanding user context
Alpha-Beta-Final User understanding deepens through phases
Stakeholder Feedback Feedback often includes user context

FAQ

Q: What if we don't have user interviews recorded? A: Ask Ryan or Erik to include a dev in the next user call. Or ask them to share key user quotes and feedback.

Q: What if I already know users from another project? A: CQ users may be different. Confirm your assumptions with Ryan or Erik.

Q: How do I build empathy if I can't talk to users? A: Watch recordings, read feedback, ask Ryan/Erik to share user stories. Direct contact is best, but secondhand is better than nothing.

Q: What if Vi gives me user context that seems wrong? A: Verify with Ryan or Erik. They have the deepest understanding.


Summary

Principle Why
Watch user interviews Hear users in their own words
Understand the domain Context makes features better
Ask "who is this for?" Every feature has a user
Use user's lens, not own lens Build what THEY need
When in doubt, ask Ryan/Erik They know users best

You can't build for users you don't understand.