magnus919_agent-skills/product-discovery/references/transcript-to-spec.md

Transcript-to-Spec Distillation

The Critical Bridge

This is where the most information loss occurs. Raw conversation notes enter one end; a structured SPEC.md exits the other. The methodology makes the translation visible and auditable.

The 9-Step Workflow

PREP: Before the Conversation

Load the gap detection reference to prepare for recognizing what stakeholders don't say.

STEP 1: Segment the Transcript

Tag each utterance by type:

Segment Type	Example
Statement of desire	"We need to be able to export reports as CSV"
Anecdote / narrative	"Last week a customer spent 45 minutes trying to..."
Rule / constraint	"Only admins can delete projects"
Hedge / weasel word	"We should probably handle that eventually"
Question	"What happens when the payment fails?"
Deflection	Topic change, non-answer

STEP 2: Identify Candidate ACs Using Linguistic Markers

Stakeholder Says	→	What It Yields
"We need to [capability]"	→	1:1 AC — explicit requirement
"When X happens, Y breaks"	→	Implied AC — inverse of complaint
"Only X can do Y"	→	Rule/constraint — needs positive + negative scenarios
"What about X?"	→	Edge case cue
"Remember when X happened?"	→	Error scenario — apply freeze-frame

STEP 3: Classify Each AC by Origin

Category	Definition	Becomes
SAID	Explicitly stated by stakeholder	Direct AC
IMPLIED	Logically necessary for a SAID requirement	Infrastructure AC
INTERPRETED	Added by distiller from domain knowledge	Additional AC — flag for validation
INFERRED	Derived from a gap or avoided topic	Open Question — NOT an AC

STEP 4: Apply the Anecdote-Freeze-Frame Technique

For every anecdote, freeze at three points. Each freeze frame generates 1-2 ACs:

1. FF1 — BEFORE: State and user action preceding failure
2. FF2 — DURING: What happens during failure (system state, UX)
3. FF3 — AFTER: Outcome and what the user learns

Ratio: 1 anecdote → 3-5 ACs minimum.

STEP 5: Convert to Given/When/Then

Use the "Friends Episode" naming convention — memorable titles stakeholders can recognize:

❌ "Validate pagination parameters when exceeding max limit"
✅ "The one where someone tries to export the whole internet"

STEP 6: Flag Interpretation Risk

Level	When	Action
LOW	AC maps 1:1 to explicit statement	Source attribution only
MEDIUM	Clear statement, but edge cases unstated	Flag in Open Questions
HIGH	Vague language, multiple interpretations	MUST validate with stakeholder

STEP 7: Identify and Log Conflicts

Cross-reference all AC candidates. Classify by type:

Type	Example	Resolution
Genuine disagreement	Different stakeholders want different behaviors	Escalate to decision-maker
Role-dependent	Each role needs different rules	Role-based behavior is often correct
Temporal	"Now" vs "later"	Priority question
Terminology	Different meanings for same word	Agree on shared glossary
Assumption clash	Different beliefs about what's feasible	Translate to NFR threshold

STEP 8: Identify Gaps (Inferred Requirements)

Review the transcript for what stakeholders DID NOT discuss. Use the gap detection checklist:

• Abstract nouns never unpacked
• Decisions deferred without trigger/owner/deadline
• People absent from the conversation
• Edge cases that follow naturally from stated requirements but were never mentioned

Convert gaps to Open Questions, NOT to ACs.

STEP 9: Validate with Stakeholders

• HIGH-risk interpretations → validate with original speaker first
• Conflicts → present to decision-maker with both positions documented
• Formalized ACs → run the "would you say yes to this?" test

The Interpretation Audit Trail

Every AC in the spec should trace to a specific discovery artifact:

### AC-001.1: Request generates confirmation
**Source:** Sarah (Support), quote: "The worst is when you submit and it just vanishes."
**Interpretation risk:** LOW — explicit concern about visibility
**Cross-reference:** Bob (Engineering) confirmed email notifications are feasible

Sources

• Specification by Example (Adzic) — deriving executable specs from conversations
• Example Mapping — Wynne/Cucumber — 4-color card technique
• Deliberate Discovery (North) — learning as the constraint
• Acceptance Criteria vs Scenarios (Keogh) — rules vs. examples