vindm Persona testing
A deny-list catches binary phrase violations and the reuse gate catches context-mismatch reuse, but a string can pass both and still feel wrong: written for day-1 enthusiasm it reads condescending on day 30; written in customer-service register it reads performative when the assistant is meant to feel like a peer; written for a stranger it reads patronizing to a user who already knows the app. These aren't specific phrases — they're voice-register failures spread across many words. Three orthogonal tests catch them.
Run this at both moments:
- Design time — every proposed copy element in the spec passes the triad before the spec is approved.
- Audit time — first action when any visible copy element is found on the audited surface; verify the string in source, apply all three tests, and the REWRITE verdict binds regardless of what the spec said. This rerun is the only thing that catches implementation drift: an engineer swapping "Continue" for "Next", a translation file extended by pattern-matching from an adjacent first-touch surface, or an LLM-shaped pipeline emitting a customer-service register that was never in the spec.
The three tests
Each is orthogonal. A string passes only if all three PASS — two-of-three ships drift.
Test 1 — Frequency-jaded ("day-30")
"Would this string read OK if the user saw this exact string on day 30? Day 60? Day 365?"
A first-touch string fails instantly: "Hi — I'm your assistant" on day 30 is repetition, not welcome. An evergreen status string passes: a quiet-state line works every day it's true. Catches strings authored for new-user emotional context and shipped to surfaces the user revisits regularly.
Match the framing to the product's usage pattern, derived at runtime. For a once-per-user flow (a checkout) the right framing is "did this read OK to a user under cognitive load" rather than "on the 30th rerun". For other product shapes, swap the whole triad for the fitting one — a CLI tool: first-run / power-user / regression-debugger; a doc site: skimmer / focused-learner / reference-checker; a B2B tool: trial-evaluator / power-admin / new-team-member. Pick the triad that fits this project's reader.
Test 2 — Partner / peer (voice-register)
"Would the project's reference voice say this — or does it sound like customer service, a tutorial, or a performance?"
The reference voice is project-specific — read the project's stated voice / quality-bar / design-north-star at runtime to find what it aspires to (a calm, observant, non-apologizing empty-state voice; a terse, confident, present product voice; or a specific named persona the team adopted). The anti-references that FAIL this test:
- Customer-service register: "I'm here to help" / "How can I help" / "Is there anything else"
- Apology register: "Sorry to interrupt" / "Sorry, that didn't work" / "Oops"
- Performance register: "Great job!" / "You're crushing it" / over-eager exclamation
- Tutorial register: "Tap the button below" / "Here's how this works"
Catches strings that fall into the default friendly-helpful register when the project's voice is meant to be cooler, more confident, less performative.
Test 3 — Cold-stranger (already-knows-me)
"Does this string assume the user has met the assistant and the product — or is it introducing them as if for the first time?"
PASS = treats the user as someone who already knows the assistant and the context. FAIL = re-introduces, re-explains, or re-asks information already provided ("I'm your assistant, here to help" on a daily-driver; "Let me explain how this works" on a feature used for a week; "What kind of thing do you have?" after it's configured). Catches strings authored without knowledge of the user's accumulated context.
Procedure
Enumerate every copy element on the target. For designs, list every string in the proposed spec. For audits, capture the surface and grep its strings (translation files + inline strings in components — discover the paths at runtime).
Test each element into a table:
Surface Copy element Day-30 Partner Stranger Verdict PASS/FAIL PASS/FAIL PASS/FAIL OK/REWRITE Apply the verdict. All three PASS → ship. Any FAIL → REWRITE; do not ship a spec or claim audit-clean with a failing string.
Hard-bound deny-list check (independent of the three tests). Some phrases are categorically banned on certain surface types. Mirror the project's deny-list (read it at runtime if present) as a mechanical backstop — those phrases never ship on the wrong surface regardless of how charitably the three interpretive tests were run.
Non-negotiables
All three tests pass or the string is REWRITE — no "FAIL but contextually fine" (if a test genuinely doesn't apply, the test definition was wrong, not the verdict). Run at both ends: design-time application catches problems cheaply, audit-time rerun catches the drift that ships otherwise. The partner test needs a specific reference voice — "friendly but not too friendly" is vibes; name the real one from the project.