multi-source-signal-synthesiser

# Multi-Source Signal Synthesiser Skill

Reconcile user signals from multiple sources — interviews, support tickets, NPS, app reviews, sales calls — into a unified, weighted insight brief that surfaces the underlying need rather than the surface-level request.

## Required Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:
- **Signal sources** (interviews, support tickets, NPS verbatims, app reviews, sales calls, analytics — any combination)
- **Time period** covered by the data
- **Product area or feature** the signals relate to (if scoped)

## Source Weighting (default — adapt to context)

| Source | Weight | Rationale |
|--------|--------|-----------|
| Direct research (interviews, usability tests) | 5 | Highest-fidelity, structured |
| Support tickets (unprompted pain signals) | 4 | Real pain, unfiltered |
| NPS verbatims | 3 | Broad but shallow |
| App store reviews | 2 | Public, self-selected |
| Sales call summaries | 2 | Filtered through sales lens |
| Anecdote or single report | 1 | Low confidence alone |

## Process
1. Tag each signal by source and apply weight
2. Look for **convergence**: same underlying need appearing across 3+ sources
3. Look for **divergence**: contradictory signals suggesting user segmentation
4. Distinguish surface request from underlying need (e.g. "faster export" may mean "I don't trust the data will be there when I need it")
5. Produce ranked insights by weighted frequency
6. **Validate** — Confirm each insight has evidence from at least 2 source types. Flag any insight resting on a single source as low-confidence.

## Output Structure

### User Signal Synthesis — [Date / Period]
**Sources included:** [list with count per source]
**Total signals processed:** [n]

#### Insight 1: [Underlying need, not feature request]
- **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low (based on source diversity and weight)
- **Evidence:** [Signals from each source supporting this]
- **Conflicting signals:** [Any contradicting evidence and how to interpret it]
- **Product implication:** [Specific next step, not generic]

[Repeat for top 3-5 insights]

#### Divergent Signals (Possible Segmentation)
[Where user groups appear to have genuinely different needs — specify which segments]

#### What the Data Does NOT Tell Us
[Gaps that require further research before acting]

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Every insight references at least 2 distinct source types
- [ ] Surface requests are translated to underlying needs (not just echoed)
- [ ] Divergent signals identify the specific user segments, not just "some users disagree"
- [ ] Confidence ratings are consistent with source diversity and weighting
- [ ] "What the data does NOT tell us" section is honest about gaps

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not echo surface-level feature requests as insights — translate every request to the underlying need before including it as a finding
- [ ] Do not assign High confidence to insights supported by only one source type — confidence requires corroboration across at least two distinct source types
- [ ] Do not treat all sources as equally weighted — a single interview quote and a pattern across 200 support tickets are not comparable signals
- [ ] Do not collapse divergent signals into a single finding — where user segments have genuinely different needs, name the segments explicitly rather than averaging them away
- [ ] Do not omit the research gap section when key decisions rest on thin data — acting on low-confidence findings without flagging the gaps misleads product teams