nomarj Silence Audit — Who Is Missing and Why
Purpose
Public internet evidence systematically over-represents certain populations and under-represents others. This skill makes that bias visible. It does not eliminate it — it names it, assesses its impact, and proposes mitigation.
A persona panel without a Silence Audit will confidently represent the internet's majority voice and mistake it for the whole picture. That is the opposite of empathy.
When to Run
- Mandatory: After Step 3 (persona construction) in every full DISCOVER run
- Optional: Standalone via
/silence-auditto check existing evidence - Cannot be skipped during full DISCOVER
The Protocol
1. Identify Evidence Sources Present
List every source type used in the persona panel's evidence chains:
- Product reviews
- Forum discussions
- Support threads
- Social media
- Published interviews
- Job postings
- Academic/industry research
- Government/census data
- Analytics data
- Direct user conversations
2. Check for Systematic Over-Representation
These groups dominate public internet evidence:
| Over-Represented | Why |
|---|---|
| English speakers | Internet content skews English |
| Tech-literate users | They write reviews, post on forums |
| Affluent consumers | They buy products worth reviewing |
| Vocal extremes | Strong opinions get posted; mild ones don't |
| Younger demographics | Higher social media activity |
| Urban populations | Better internet access, more digital services |
Ask: Does my persona panel disproportionately reflect these groups?
3. Check for Systematic Under-Representation
These groups are typically absent from public internet evidence:
| Under-Represented | Why |
|---|---|
| Non-English speakers | Content in other languages wasn't searched |
| Older adults (65+) | Lower digital presence, fewer reviews |
| Low-income users | Don't buy products to review, less digital access |
| People with disabilities | Unless product targets accessibility specifically |
| Regulated industry users | Can't discuss work publicly (finance, defence, healthcare) |
| Silent satisfied | Use the product daily, never post about it |
| Silent churn | Tried it, left, said nothing |
| Rural populations | Less digital infrastructure, fewer online communities |
| Non-binary/minority groups | Under-represented in training data and review platforms |
Ask: Which of these groups are relevant to our design challenge but absent from our evidence?
4. Assess Material Impact
For each absent group, ask: does their absence change the answer?
| Impact Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
| HIGH | This group is core to the design challenge. Their absence means our evidence base is fundamentally incomplete. |
| MED | This group is adjacent. Their absence limits our understanding but doesn't invalidate the core findings. |
| LOW | This group is tangential. Their absence is noted but doesn't affect current design decisions. |
5. Determine Mitigation
For each HIGH or MED impact absence:
| Mitigation | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Accept and label | Group is real but evidence is genuinely unavailable. Label all related findings as LIMITED and note the gap. |
| Seek alternative evidence | Use non-internet sources: government data, census, academic ethnographies, NGO reports, accessibility audits, industry body research. |
| Flag for fieldwork | This group MUST be included in real-world research. Synthetic panel cannot represent them. Add to Feature acceptance criteria. |
6. Assign Blind Spot Rating
| Rating | Criteria | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| MINOR | Missing groups are tangential to the challenge | Proceed normally. Note in SOLUTION.md. |
| MODERATE | Missing groups are relevant but not primary | Feature DONE criteria should include at least one check. |
| SEVERE | Missing groups are core to the challenge | ALL findings are provisional. Features require real-user validation before DONE. |
Output Format
SILENCE AUDIT
Scope: [SOLUTION.md / EP-XXX / persona panel dated YYYY-MM-DD]
Date: [today]
EVIDENCE SOURCES PRESENT: [list]
EVIDENCE SOURCES MISSING: [list]
WHO IS MISSING:
1. [Group]
Why absent: [reason]
Material impact: HIGH / MED / LOW
Mitigation: Accept / Alt. evidence / Fieldwork priority
2. [Group]
...
BLIND SPOT RATING: MINOR / MODERATE / SEVERE
[If SEVERE]: All Features derived from this evidence must include
real-user validation as acceptance criteria before DONE.
Save Location
.nomark/research/silence-audit.md
Proposes updates to SOLUTION.md "Who Is Missing (Silence Check)" table.