Vector
Where could the misuse begin—and how could it travel?
The methodology / A different perspective
The feature is only
half the story.
You know what you want people to do.
We’re interested in what else they could do.
One ordinary product decisionChange the perspective ↓
On the product roadmap“Let teammates share
“Let teammates share
customer records instantly.”
Less friction. Faster handovers. A feature that makes perfect sense on the happy path.
What would make this a good idea?
Illustrative example. The questions change when the context does.
A person.
An opening.
A consequence.
“Someone could misuse this” is easy to say. It is much harder—and more useful—to name the person, understand their incentive and trace the decisions that give them room to act.
That’s where an investigation starts. Then we look for what your team can actually change.
Human incentivesPermissions & accessMisuse pathsProduct decisions
Same product.
Different things become visible.
Reachability
How easily could someone get into that situation?
Severity
What could the consequence mean for the people involved?
Detectability
Would anyone notice in time to do something about it?
The interesting part
is your decision.
A framework on a webpage can only tell you so much. The value is in what it reveals about your product: the permission that is too broad, the incentive pulling the wrong way, or the person your definition of “user” left out.
We keep the detailed investigation process behind the scenes. You should still be able to understand a finding, challenge its assumptions and decide what to do next.
Bring an idea you’re still thinking about.
I’ll show you the kinds of questions we would ask—and why they might change the conversation.