Published studies

All case studies

Every one of these started the same way: a number nobody could explain, and a suspicion that the obvious answer was wrong. The interesting part is never the redesign — it’s the moment the evidence contradicts what everyone assumed.

Four studies across social care, retail, consumer electronics and a product I’m building myself. One was commissioned and measured. Three were run on my own initiative, where nothing can be claimed and the reasoning has to carry it. Both are labelled, because a portfolio that reports them the same way isn’t telling you the truth about either.

04
Studies
01
Client · measured
03
Own initiative
01
In progress

UX ResearchCRO & ConversionBehaviouralProduct DesignService Design

How to read these
Commercial outcome — measured against a live baseline Independent finding or hypothesis — evidenced, not yet validated
  1. 01 Problem What was happening?
  2. 02 Investigation What did I investigate?
  3. 03 Response What changed?
  4. 04 Evidence What happened afterwards?
  5. 05 Learning What did it teach me?

Index

04 studies
  1. 01 / 04 The Confidence Gap GoToHealthcare · Social CareClientUX Research · CRO · Service Design ↓11%Drop-off reduced across key user journeys
  2. 02 / 04 The False Bottom Samsung · Consumer TechExplorationCRO · Behavioural 4Isolated experiments designed
  3. 03 / 04 The Trust Gap CeX · E-CommerceExplorationUX Research · CRO · Behavioural 8Participants · 2 cohorts
  4. 04 / 04 The Laundry Companion WiseLaundry · Consumer AIIn progressUX Research · Product Design · Prototyping In progressResearch not yet published
GoToHealthcare interface Samsung interface CeX interface WiseLaundry interface
FindingExits were happening on Services and About — not the contact form. The problem was structural, not the form.
8 min read Open case study →
0104GoToHealthcare · Social Care Client8 min read

The Confidence Gap

Reducing drop-off for users seeking social care

01Problem

A redesign was on the table. Nobody could say why.

The client believed the site needed rebuilding. Before committing to that, I tested whether the evidence agreed — and which problems a redesign would actually solve.

02Investigation
Role
UX Researcher & CRO Specialist
Scope
End-to-end
Ownership
Sole researcher — set the research plan, ran both test rounds, presented to stakeholders, and argued the content-reduction decision against initial client preference.
Disciplines
UX Research · CRO · Service Design
HotjarDovetailMiroFigmaSheets
03Design response

Less content, better placed.

FindingExits were happening on Services and About — not the contact form. The problem was structural, not the form.
After — value, trust and CTA above the fold Before — no clear value proposition

Homepage — entry-point friction · drag to compare

04Evidence Measured · GA4 and usability testing
↓11%Drop-off · GA4, post-launch
68s → 22sTime to understand · usability, n=5
2.4 → 4.1Trust rating /5 · usability, n=5
05Learning
They came in expecting a redesign. The evidence had a narrower answer.
Read the full case study →
0204Samsung · Consumer Tech Exploration6 min read

The False Bottom

Fixing a false bottom on a premium PDP

01Problem

Great content nobody was reaching.

Behavioural benchmarks suggested most visitors never reach the persuasive material below the hero. Four isolated experiments, each with a defined win criterion, to test whether placement is the fix.

02Investigation
Role
CRO Specialist
Timeline
3 weeks
Ownership
Sole analyst — built the experiment framework, hypotheses and win criteria.
Disciplines
CRO · Behavioural
FigmaSheets
03Design response

Four changes, tested one at a time.

FindingBefore it was a content problem, it was a visibility problem.
Proposed — all four combined Control — current live page

Consolidation target — not a live test · drag to compare

04Evidence Experiment design · proposed, not run
4Isolated experiments designed
05Learning
The hero wasn’t too big. It was hiding the reason to buy.
Explore the experiment →
0304CeX · E-Commerce Exploration7 min read

The Trust Gap

Closing the trust gap on second-hand retail

01Problem

A discount that made people suspicious.

Warranties, verification and return protection weren’t visible at the point of decision. Eight participants across two cohorts showed where trust broke down — and where reassurance needed to move.

02Investigation
Role
UX Researcher & CRO Consultant
Timeline
5 weeks
Ownership
Sole researcher and designer — recruited participants, ran all sessions, produced the redesign concept.
Disciplines
UX Research · CRO · Behavioural
FigmaDovetailMazeSheets
03Design response

Moving reassurance to where the doubt happens.

Finding7 of 8 participants couldn’t interpret the condition grades. Price wasn’t the objection; the absence of a reason to trust it was.
Concept — trust signals above the fold Control — current live CeX PDP

Above the fold — live page vs. concept · drag to compare

04Evidence Research scope · qualitative study
8Participants · 2 cohorts
05Learning
People didn’t need more information. They needed a reason to trust it.
See the investigation →
0404WiseLaundry · Consumer AI In progressResearch in progress · not yet published

The Laundry Companion

Designing an AI companion that transforms everyday laundry

01Problem

A machine that won’t explain itself.

Helping people move from guesswork to confidence by turning one of the home’s most overlooked appliances into a trusted AI-supported experience.

02Investigation
Role
Product Designer & Researcher
Status
Ongoing
Ownership
Sole designer and researcher — concept, prototype and study design.
Disciplines
UX Research · Product Design · Prototyping
FigmaMazeDovetailClaude
03Design response

Guidance before the mistake, not after it.

FindingThe interface, not the person, is the source of the error.
WiseLaundry wash groups screen WiseLaundry recommendation screen WiseLaundry wardrobe screen

Prototype screens · not yet validated

04Evidence Prototype scope · in progress
5Connected flows prototyped
05Learning
The hard part isn’t designing the AI. It’s making people believe it belongs in their kitchen.
View the work in progress →
Why these belong together

Four industries. One way of asking.

Good research doesn’t begin with answers. It begins with a question worth testing — and the willingness to be wrong about it in public. Every one of these projects ran the same three checks: who is this person right now, what has their industry taught them to expect, and where exactly does the flow break.

BehaviourContextFlow=Testable hypothesis