What to do when customer interviews for AI document processing contradict each other

Contradictory interviews can reveal different segments, incentives, definitions, or contexts. Preserve the disagreement before trying to average it away. Two people can accurately describe different workflows while using the same label for their problem.

Start with the decision

Sort observations by role, company situation, current alternative, and triggering event. Revisit the exact episode behind each statement. Design a follow-up that distinguishes the competing explanations rather than asking which person was right.

The illustrative scenario

This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.

The fictional product extracts invoice data for an accounts payable team. Staff review exceptions before information enters the accounting system. Supplier formats and duplicate documents make the input stream uneven.

A misplaced decimal or duplicate record can matter more than an average extraction score. Define the fields and events that require review before comparing workflows.

Turn the scenario into an evidence decision

Consider a review of AI document processing in which a confident explanation arrives before the supporting records. Start with the first question in the table. Write down what an answer would change: the next interview, the experiment's scope, a request for specialist review, or a decision to wait. A question without a consequence can produce a longer document while adding little understanding.

Next, inspect the record named in the table and record its date, owner, permission boundary, and limitations. Use permissioned documents, field-level corrections, duplicate flags, and reconciliation results. Keep document type and supplier format visible instead of relying on one blended score. If the record contradicts the explanation, preserve both accounts and ask which definition, period, or workflow differs. Do not silently select the version that makes the opportunity look strongest.

Finish with a conditional statement: if the specified evidence supports the claim under these conditions, take the named next step; otherwise investigate the unresolved question. A useful conclusion explains where each statement holds. If the conflict disappears after segmenting by workflow, update the target segment. If it remains unexplained, keep it as an open question rather than choosing the more flattering answer. This worked exercise is about the decision process. It does not assert that a fictional company has met a real diligence standard or that a template can authorize an investment.

Use this worksheet

Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.

1. Are the respondents doing the same task?
2. Do they use the same definition?
3. Who bears the cost?
4. Which constraint differs?
5. What observation separates the explanations?

Questions specific to this scenario

• Which fields require exact agreement?
• How are duplicate invoices handled?
• Who signs off on reconciliation?

Use permissioned documents, field-level corrections, duplicate flags, and reconciliation results. Keep document type and supplier format visible instead of relying on one blended score.

A concrete next test

Select permissioned invoices from different supplier formats and include a duplicate. Trace each field through correction and export to reconciliation. Ask the accounts payable owner which error would block use even if most fields were extracted correctly.

Interpret the result

A useful conclusion explains where each statement holds. If the conflict disappears after segmenting by workflow, update the target segment. If it remains unexplained, keep it as an open question rather than choosing the more flattering answer.

Compare correct, reconciled records with the current process. Include document intake, exception review, and corrections after export in the time and cost model.

Sources and method

These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.

• a16z: A Framework for Finding a Design Partner
• NIST: AI Risk Management Framework