---
name: mohitagw15856/interview-synthesis
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/mohitagw15856-interview-synthesis@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: 13febf018ea3
---

# Interview Synthesis Skill

Interview piles get "synthesized" two bad ways: the highlight reel (the quotes that confirmed what the team hoped) and the mush ("users want simplicity" — twelve hours of conversation flattened into a poster). Honest synthesis is mechanical before it's interpretive: code the notes (what did each person actually say, tagged), count the themes (a theme is something *multiple* people said — with the number attached), preserve the divergences (the two dissenters are data, not noise), and size every claim to the sample — twelve interviews support "we repeatedly heard," never "users want."

## What This Skill Produces

- **The coded pass** — each interview's statements tagged to emerging codes, traceable back to the speaker
- **The theme table** — themes with counts (7/12 raised unprompted; 3 more agreed when asked — the prompted/unprompted split matters)
- **The divergence report** — who disagreed with each theme and why; the outliers examined, not deleted
- **The claims, sample-sized** — findings phrased at what N interviews can carry, with the quotes that illustrate honestly

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The notes/transcripts** — the actual material; synthesis of summaries synthesizes the summarizer's biases
- **The questions the interviews served** — what the study was trying to learn; themes get organized against them (plus the "unexpected" bucket, often the best one)
- **The sample's shape** — who these people are, how selected (12 enthusiastic volunteers ≠ 12 representative users — the selection shapes what claims are legal)
- **What the team already believes** — stated up front as hypotheses; the synthesis marks confirms/contradicts explicitly (the contradicts are the expensive-to-lose ones)

## Framework: The Synthesis Rules

1. **Code before theming:** pass one is mechanical — each substantive statement tagged (needs-integration, pricing-confusion, workaround-X) with speaker attribution. Themes emerge from tag frequencies, not from memory — memory promotes the vivid, and vividness isn't prevalence.
2. **Count, and split prompted from unprompted:** every theme carries its number ("8/12"), and *unprompted mentions outweigh prompted agreements* — "seven raised pricing before we asked" is a finding; "everyone agreed pricing matters when asked" is politeness. The counts keep the highlight reel honest.
3. **Divergence is data:** the two who disagreed get examined — different segment? Different workflow? Their *why* often reveals the theme's boundary condition ("the theme holds for teams over ten; both dissenters were solo"). Deleting outliers manufactures consensus; bounding themes with them manufactures insight.
4. **Quotes illustrate counted themes — never substitute for them:** each theme gets 1–2 verbatim quotes chosen for *representativeness* (the middle of the distribution, not the spiciest take), attributed at the agreed anonymity level. A vivid quote for a 2/12 theme is cherry-picking with production values.
5. **Size claims to the sample and selection:** twelve interviews earn "a recurring pattern among [who we talked to]" — not "users want," not percentages ("58% of users" from n=12 is numerical cosplay). The confidence line states sample, selection, and what would harden the finding ("survey to size it" — the [survey-design-basics](../survey-design-basics/SKILL.md) handoff).

## Output Format

# Interview Synthesis: [study] — n=[N], [who/how selected]

## Theme Table
| Theme | Unprompted / prompted | Count | Bounded by (divergences) |
|---|---|---|---|

## The Themes (each)
**[Theme]** (n/N unprompted) — [two sentences of what it actually is] · *"[representative quote]"* · Divergence: [who + why + the boundary it suggests]

## Against the Hypotheses
[Confirmed: … · Contradicted: … — marked plainly]

## Claims & Confidence
[Findings phrased at sample-legal strength · the selection caveat · what would harden each]

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Every theme traces to coded statements with counts
- [ ] Unprompted and prompted mentions are distinguished
- [ ] Divergences are examined for boundaries, not discarded
- [ ] Quotes are representative of counted themes, not highlights
- [ ] No claim exceeds what n and selection legally support

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not synthesize from memory — the vivid interview colonizes the findings; coding is the antidote
- [ ] Do not present percentages from small samples — counts, plainly
- [ ] Do not delete the dissenters — they're the theme's boundary survey team
- [ ] Do not quote the spiciest take as the finding — representative or labeled as an outlier
- [ ] Do not let confirmation win silently — the contradicted hypotheses are the synthesis's most valuable line