Paper / Sketch Probe
What it does
Compresses a "does this workflow read the way I think it does" question into a 30-minute test. You draw the workflow as 5–9 panels, hand it to one real operator, stay silent, and log where they pause. The output is the sketch plus a read-out that names two things only: was the flow legible, and which single panel carries the real decision. It refuses to report demand or feel, because a sketch cannot observe either.
The Icarus reframe
A generic paper prototype "tests usability." This probe tests two narrower things a sketch can honestly answer: legibility (can a real operator follow the steps unprompted) and decision location (which panel holds the judgment). The pause points do the work. A pause that clears the moment you explain is a legibility gap you fix by redrawing. A pause where the operator says "it depends" or reaches for context you never drew is the decision point — that is the surface your product actually has to serve. Everything else the sketch tells you is opinion.
When to use / When NOT
Use it when the claim is about a workflow you can draw and an operator can walk, and you have not yet built it.
| Use when the claim is |
Do NOT use — route to |
| "An operator can follow these steps without me narrating" |
— |
| "The real judgment sits in one identifiable step" |
— |
| "Would they trust the output enough to act" |
concierge-probe (trust needs real stakes) |
| "Would they use it if it worked" |
wizard-of-oz-probe |
| "Will they pay / is there demand" |
wizard-of-oz-probe, then a fake-door; a sketch lies about demand |
| "Which probe answers my question at all" |
probe-matrix |
This is not probe-matrix — that picks the probe. This runs one specific probe once the choice is made.
Method
Set a 30-minute timer. Fill in template.md as you go.
Write the one claim (2 min). State it as a legibility or decision-location claim, tagged [Hypothesis]. If the claim contains the words demand, trust, pay, or "want it," stop — wrong probe. Hand back to probe-matrix.
Draw the workflow (10 min). 5–9 panels, one decision per panel, pen on paper or a single frame. No colour, no polish. Include the exception panel, not just the happy path — the decision usually hides there.
| Panel count |
Reading |
| Under 5 |
You are testing a screen, not a workflow. Fine, but say so. |
| 5–9 |
Right size for one workflow. |
| Over 9 |
You are testing the whole product. Split it. |
Recruit one real operator (target segment). Not a colleague, not a founder friend — they read your intent, not the artifact.
Run silent (10 min). Hand over the sketch. Ask them to talk through what they would do at each panel. You say nothing until they finish. Log every pause in the run table.
Classify each pause (5 min). Legibility gap (resolves when you explain) or decision point (needs off-page judgment or context).
Write the read-out (3 min). Legible yes/no with the count, the one panel where the decision lived, the evidence-ladder score, and the mandatory "what this does NOT tell you" block.
Bands:
| Signal |
Band |
Meaning |
| Panels followed unprompted |
≥ 80% |
Legible enough to build the flow |
| Panels followed unprompted |
< 80% |
Redraw; do not advance |
| Panels carrying the decision |
1 |
Workflow is decomposed |
| Panels carrying the decision |
> 2 |
Not decomposed yet; the job is still fuzzy |
Legibility % = (panels not blocked by a legibility gap) / N. A decision-point pause does NOT count against legibility — the operator followed the panel and reached for off-page judgment, which is the finding, not a failure.
Evidence standard
On the ladder — money moved 1.0, behaviour observed 0.7, artefact shown 0.5, verbal commitment 0.3, opinion 0.1 — a paper probe observes behaviour (0.7) about legibility and decision location, and nothing else. Demand and feel are not observable from a sketch, so any demand or feel signal it produces is opinion, capped at 0.1. The probe is honest about workflow legibility and where the decision sits; it lies about how it feels to use and about real demand. Done means you can name the decision panel and cite the pause behaviour. You have not earned a demand number and must not write one.
Gotchas
- Reading "yeah I'd use this" as demand. It is opinion at 0.1. The sketch lies about demand at every fidelity, so polishing it changes nothing.
- Drawing the happy path only. The decision almost always lives in the exception panel you were tempted to skip.
- Narrating the sketch as they go. You contaminate the legibility read. Run silent; explain only after they finish.
- Using a colleague or co-founder as the operator. They infer intent from knowing you, which is exactly the crutch a real user will not have.
- More than nine panels. You are testing the product, not a workflow, and the read-out will be mush.
Kill line (auto-fail): the read-out claims the sketch proved demand, willingness to pay, trust, or how the product feels to use.
Examples
examples/sample.md — Mentix runs a sketch probe of the factory-copilot alert-to-action flow; the decision turns out to live in the "halt the line" panel, which needs shift context that was never on the page.
Related skills
probe-matrix — the router that should have sent you here; go back to it if your claim is about demand, trust, or cost.wizard-of-oz-probe — the next rung when the claim is "would they use it if it worked."concierge-probe — when the claim is trust or willingness to pay under real stakes.evidence-ladder — the scoring ladder this read-out uses.
Supersedes nothing. It absorbs the paper/L1 rung of skills/discovery/prototyping-pretotyping and sharpens it: that skill tests "workflow"; this one tests legibility and decision location, and refuses to let a sketch speak about demand. It narrows that one rung — it does not replace the whole skill. probe-matrix is what supersedes prototyping-pretotyping, so this skill's supersedes: none is correct.
1---2name: paper-sketch-probe3description: Fires when a fellow wants to test a workflow on paper before building it — "paper test", "sketch it", "paper prototype", "sketch probe", "draw the flow and check they can follow it". Output is a hand-drawn workflow sketch plus a structured read-out naming what was legible and where the decision lived. NOT for choosing which probe to run (that is `probe-matrix`), and NOT for testing demand, trust, or willingness to pay — a sketch lies about all three; route those to `wizard-of-oz-probe` or `concierge-probe`.4---5# Paper / Sketch Probe67## What it does8Compresses a "does this workflow read the way I think it does" question into a 30-minute test. You draw the workflow as 5–9 panels, hand it to one real operator, stay silent, and log where they pause. The output is the sketch plus a read-out that names two things only: was the flow legible, and which single panel carries the real decision. It refuses to report demand or feel, because a sketch cannot observe either.910## The Icarus reframe11A generic paper prototype "tests usability." This probe tests two narrower things a sketch can honestly answer: legibility (can a real operator follow the steps unprompted) and decision location (which panel holds the judgment). The pause points do the work. A pause that clears the moment you explain is a legibility gap you fix by redrawing. A pause where the operator says "it depends" or reaches for context you never drew is the decision point — that is the surface your product actually has to serve. Everything else the sketch tells you is opinion.1213## When to use / When NOT14Use it when the claim is about a workflow you can draw and an operator can walk, and you have not yet built it.1516| Use when the claim is | Do NOT use — route to |17|---|---|18| "An operator can follow these steps without me narrating" | — |19| "The real judgment sits in one identifiable step" | — |20| "Would they trust the output enough to act" | `concierge-probe` (trust needs real stakes) |21| "Would they use it if it worked" | `wizard-of-oz-probe` |22| "Will they pay / is there demand" | `wizard-of-oz-probe`, then a fake-door; a sketch lies about demand |23| "Which probe answers my question at all" | `probe-matrix` |2425This is not `probe-matrix` — that picks the probe. This runs one specific probe once the choice is made.2627## Method28Set a 30-minute timer. Fill in `template.md` as you go.29301. **Write the one claim (2 min).** State it as a legibility or decision-location claim, tagged `[Hypothesis]`. If the claim contains the words demand, trust, pay, or "want it," stop — wrong probe. Hand back to `probe-matrix`.312. **Draw the workflow (10 min).** 5–9 panels, one decision per panel, pen on paper or a single frame. No colour, no polish. Include the exception panel, not just the happy path — the decision usually hides there.3233 | Panel count | Reading |34 |---|---|35 | Under 5 | You are testing a screen, not a workflow. Fine, but say so. |36 | 5–9 | Right size for one workflow. |37 | Over 9 | You are testing the whole product. Split it. |383. **Recruit one real operator (target segment).** Not a colleague, not a founder friend — they read your intent, not the artifact.394. **Run silent (10 min).** Hand over the sketch. Ask them to talk through what they would do at each panel. You say nothing until they finish. Log every pause in the run table.405. **Classify each pause (5 min).** Legibility gap (resolves when you explain) or decision point (needs off-page judgment or context).416. **Write the read-out (3 min).** Legible yes/no with the count, the one panel where the decision lived, the evidence-ladder score, and the mandatory "what this does NOT tell you" block.4243Bands:4445| Signal | Band | Meaning |46|---|---|---|47| Panels followed unprompted | ≥ 80% | Legible enough to build the flow |48| Panels followed unprompted | < 80% | Redraw; do not advance |49| Panels carrying the decision | 1 | Workflow is decomposed |50| Panels carrying the decision | > 2 | Not decomposed yet; the job is still fuzzy |5152Legibility % = (panels not blocked by a legibility gap) / N. A decision-point pause does NOT count against legibility — the operator followed the panel and reached for off-page judgment, which is the finding, not a failure.5354## Evidence standard55On the ladder — money moved 1.0, behaviour observed 0.7, artefact shown 0.5, verbal commitment 0.3, opinion 0.1 — a paper probe observes behaviour (0.7) about legibility and decision location, and nothing else. Demand and feel are not observable from a sketch, so any demand or feel signal it produces is opinion, capped at 0.1. The probe is honest about workflow legibility and where the decision sits; it lies about how it feels to use and about real demand. Done means you can name the decision panel and cite the pause behaviour. You have not earned a demand number and must not write one.5657## Gotchas58- Reading "yeah I'd use this" as demand. It is opinion at 0.1. The sketch lies about demand at every fidelity, so polishing it changes nothing.59- Drawing the happy path only. The decision almost always lives in the exception panel you were tempted to skip.60- Narrating the sketch as they go. You contaminate the legibility read. Run silent; explain only after they finish.61- Using a colleague or co-founder as the operator. They infer intent from knowing you, which is exactly the crutch a real user will not have.62- More than nine panels. You are testing the product, not a workflow, and the read-out will be mush.6364Kill line (auto-fail): the read-out claims the sketch proved demand, willingness to pay, trust, or how the product feels to use.6566## Examples67[examples/sample.md](examples/sample.md) — Mentix runs a sketch probe of the factory-copilot alert-to-action flow; the decision turns out to live in the "halt the line" panel, which needs shift context that was never on the page.6869## Related skills70- `probe-matrix` — the router that should have sent you here; go back to it if your claim is about demand, trust, or cost.71- `wizard-of-oz-probe` — the next rung when the claim is "would they use it if it worked."72- `concierge-probe` — when the claim is trust or willingness to pay under real stakes.73- `evidence-ladder` — the scoring ladder this read-out uses.74Supersedes nothing. It absorbs the paper/L1 rung of `skills/discovery/prototyping-pretotyping` and sharpens it: that skill tests "workflow"; this one tests legibility and decision location, and refuses to let a sketch speak about demand. It **narrows** that one rung — it does not replace the whole skill. `probe-matrix` is what supersedes `prototyping-pretotyping`, so this skill's `supersedes: none` is correct.
The-Utopia-Studio