Looks like nobody could make it last night. Thought I'd share where my head is at on Product Disocvery anyway, in case it's useful. I still start where I always start: BJ Fogg Fogg's model is B = MAP. Behavior happens when Motivation, Ability, and a Prompt show up at the same moment. If a behavior isn't happening, one of those three is missing. The reason I keep coming back to it for discovery is that most discovery asks people what they want. Fogg's model says wanting isn't usually the constraint. Motivation is the least reliable leg of the three because it moves around constantly. So if you build on what people say they want, you're building on the wobbliest part. Ability and prompt are where the leverage is. Practically, that changes the question. Instead of "would you use this," you ask "what happened the last time you tried to do this, and what stopped you." One gets you enthusiasm. The other gets you friction, which is the thing you can actually design against. His other idea that shows up in my work a lot: target behaviors, not outcomes. "Get healthier" isn't a behavior. "Floss one tooth" is. Most feature requests are outcomes wearing a costume, and the job is getting back to the behavior underneath. How I've traditionally thought about discovery: Interviews. Contextual inquiry. Surveys when the question is countable. Usability testing. Session replay for what happened, analytics for how often, and then talking to people for why. A repository so the last six months of learning doesn't evaporate. None of that has stopped working. Three things have genuinely shifted, and I'd separate them: - AI-moderated interviews. Running conversational interviews in parallel and getting a synthesis back the same day. This is the real change, and it's the one I'm most curious about. - Feedback aggregation. Pulling support tickets, sales calls, and surveys into one place and finding themes across all of it. Mostly this means you can now read things nobody had time to read before. Hard to argue with. - Synthetic users. AI-generated participants you interview instead of people. I haven't used them. I'm open to it, and I'm also suspicious, and I'd like to talk to someone who has.