Every finding visibly distinguishes FACT / USER COMPLAINT / TREND / ASSUMPTION / OPPORTUNITY and shows source, URL (if present), date, confidence and provenance. UNKNOWN or missing evidence never silently becomes HIGH confidence. Contradictions are shown as CONFLICTING EVIDENCE and are never auto-resolved. Opportunity level (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH) considers: user pain, evidence strength, strategic relevance, implementation burden, differentiation potential. It remains an assessment, not mathematical truth.
A CONTINUOUS finding is escalated to Hermes only when it is relevant, materially useful, evidence-backed, and not trending noise.
Findings (1 of 7 shown · MOCK/STATIC fixtures — not real current research)
All findings below are clearly-labelled MOCK/STATIC examples with generic placeholder content. None are live research results.
DF-002USER COMPLAINTON DEMANDNEWMOCK
Offline edit loss reported in example note community
Users in an example note-taking forum thread report losing offline edits after sync conflicts.
Project
example-note-app
Confidence
MEDIUM
Relevance
HIGH
Opportunity
MEDIUM
Source
Public forum thread (example) https://forum.example.com/threads/123
Source date
2026-09-20
Captured at
2026-10-04
Recommended next action
Feed to the Product Planning Cell as a candidate problem statement.
UI semantics only. V1 has no write API: promotion/dismissal is LOCKED preview. A promoted finding is reviewed by Hermes before the Product Architect / Product Critic act on it — discovery never bypasses the Planning Cell and never creates build tasks from weak signals.