Build a Discovery Evidence Board in Miro
Keep evidence, interpretation and product decisions as separate linked objects. Confidence should describe the support for a specific claim, not serve as a decorative percentage attached to an entire project.
Before you start: Have approved research and metric sources, a decision area and an evidence owner. Preserve access boundaries for sensitive material.
Worked example: A claim that owners need bulk invitations may rest on two support requests. Keep those sources visible and distinguish the request from the unverified claim that most owners need it.
Step-by-step guide
Inventory sources
Record source type, date, audience and access link. Distinguish direct observation from a secondhand summary.
Write specific claims
State what each piece of evidence suggests without overstating scope. Keep proposed solutions separate from the underlying problem.
Assess support
Explain confidence through relevance, independence and coverage. Use qualitative labels when numerical precision is unjustified.
Add counterevidence
Link observations that challenge or limit the claim. Make missing audiences and contradictory contexts visible.
Connect decisions
Identify which commitment depends on the claim. Prioritize evidence gaps by their effect on that decision.
Maintain the board
Assign owners and review dates for consequential claims. Update confidence when new evidence arrives and retain the prior rationale.
Common mistakes
Confidence without rationale
A number can hide weak support.
Sources count as independent
Repeated summaries may derive from one interview.
No decision link
Evidence collection becomes an archive without purpose.
Tips
Keep original sources distinct from summaries.
Record the audience each claim covers.
Review stale consequential claims before reuse.
Sources and verification
Based on product documentation checked on 2026-10-24. This is a documentation-based guide, not a hands-on benchmark. Features and availability can change.