You review the facts and access. Nothing is published without your approval.
The method behind the survey findings reportAsk your agent to keep counts and sample limits beside each claim, and separate overlapping themes from distinct respondents.
How do I turn survey results into a useful page with my agent?
Supply de-identified results, the exact questions, recruitment method, and reviewed counts. Ask your agent to explain each finding with its correct denominator, show missing answers and overlapping themes, and keep sample limitations beside the claims. Review the analysis before sharing a static HTML summary with only audience-safe evidence.
What to give your agent
Exact question wording, answer options, and whether multiple selections were allowed.
De-identified responses or approved aggregate counts, including exclusions and missing answers.
Recruitment method, field dates, invited population when known, and any reviewed weighting method.
A documented coding method for open text, approved illustrative excerpts, and the audience's decision.
Describe who actually answered
State how respondents were recruited and who was eligible. Voluntary replies do not automatically represent all customers. Preserve known nonresponse and sampling limitations; do not invent weighting or a margin of error for a sample that does not support it.
Use the denominator for each question
A survey with forty respondents may have only thirty-two answers to a particular question. Show that count beside the result. Distinguish skipped questions, excluded responses, and genuine zero values. Verify calculations outside the HTML page before writing the headline.
Explain themes without manufacturing consensus
Use an explicit coding method and retain contradictory or less common views when they matter. Multiple themes can occur in one response, so theme totals may exceed the respondent count. Do not invent quotations or treat selected anecdotes as frequency evidence.
Connect the finding to a bounded next step
Explain what the responses suggest investigating, not what they prove about every user. Keep proposed changes separate from research findings. Remove identifiers and sensitive free text, then have an authorized reviewer check the complete summary and sharing audience.
Create a survey findings page using only authorized de-identified responses, exact questions, sampling details, and reviewed counts. Ask for missing essentials: recruitment, field dates, question wording, denominators, missing answers, exclusions, and coding method. Show counts beside percentages and preserve question-specific denominators. Keep respondent findings distinct from population claims. Do not invent representativeness, weighting, margin of error, causal conclusions, quotations, or missing counts. Explain overlapping themes and keep observed findings separate from proposed actions. Exclude identifiers and sensitive free text; use only explicitly approved excerpts. Create static HTML with no scripts, forms, survey collection, or live-data claims. Use my saved artifact style if available. Show the draft, calculations, and uncertain claims for review. Do not publish or change access without separate explicit approval.
Check before you shareAccuracy, clarity, and permission
Does each result identify who answered that question and how many skipped it?
Are recruitment limits and any weighting accurately described?
Are themes, frequencies, and quotations traceable to the supplied method and evidence?
Are generalizations and proposed actions distinct from observed responses?
Could free text or small-group details identify a respondent?
When HTML fits
A readable findings companion for an approved audience, connecting reviewed aggregate evidence to a practical discussion without exposing a response spreadsheet.
When another format fits better
Use survey and analysis tools for collection, response management, weighting, and statistical work. Seek appropriate research review for consequential inferences. A static page is not a survey form, analysis engine, or guarantee of anonymity.
What we started withThe same facts, as a wiki page
Fictional team wiki
Moss Workspace — guide-navigation survey findings
Survey method
Fielded September 1–7, 2026. Forty people submitted the voluntary in-product survey. The invitation count is unknown, so invitation response rate cannot be calculated. There was no weighting, and representativeness of all customers is not established.
Guide-navigation question
Q1 asked “How easy was it to find the guide?” with one choice: hard to find or easy to find. Of 32 answers, 20 were hard and 12 easy; eight people skipped the question. The 20/32 result is 62.5% of Q1 respondents, not all forty respondents or all customers.
Comment themes
Q2 received fifteen comments. Coding allowed multiple themes: navigation appeared in nine comments and terminology in seven. Counts overlap; they do not establish sixteen distinct respondents. The overlap count and links to Q1 answers are unavailable. No quotation text is approved; raw comments and respondent identities are excluded.
Interpretation and proposed next step
The reviewed interpretation is to ask where navigation becomes difficult. These responses do not establish population prevalence, causes or whether a redesign will solve the problem. Five follow-up conversations are proposed, not approved recruitment or a confirmed redesign. Owner, participants, consent process and dates need agreement in the research workflow. Source URLs are not supplied; actual private responses belong in their authorized system.
Inspect the HTMLOne self-contained file
The example is sanitized and isolated from this site. No scripts, forms, or live data.
<!doctype html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><title>Moss Workspace · Navigation survey findings</title><style>
*{box-sizing:border-box}html{color-scheme:light}body{margin:0;background:#faf6fa;color:#302439;font:17px/1.65 system-ui,sans-serif}main{max-width:1000px;margin:auto;padding:clamp(20px,5vw,64px)}h1,h2,h3,p{margin:0 0 18px}h1{font:500 clamp(32px,5vw,58px)/1.14 Georgia,serif;letter-spacing:-.025em;overflow-wrap:anywhere}h2{font:500 29px/1.3 Georgia,serif;overflow-wrap:anywhere}h3{font-size:19px;line-height:1.4}.label{font:700 12px/1.6 system-ui,sans-serif;letter-spacing:.08em;text-transform:uppercase}.intro{font-size:20px}.lead{background:#53355f;color:white;padding:24px;margin:28px 0}.lead p:last-child{margin:0}.grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(100%,230px),1fr));gap:20px;margin:24px 0}.card{background:white;border:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding:24px}.metric{font:500 38px/1.2 Georgia,serif;display:block;margin-bottom:12px}section{margin:36px 0}ul,ol{padding-left:22px}li{margin-bottom:12px}.note{font-size:14px}.warning{border-left:5px solid #956118;padding-left:20px}a{color:inherit;text-underline-offset:4px}a:focus-visible,summary:focus-visible{outline:3px solid #956118;outline-offset:4px}table{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;font-size:15px}th,td{text-align:left;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding:12px 8px;overflow-wrap:anywhere}caption{text-align:left;font-weight:700;padding:12px 0}pre,code{white-space:pre-wrap;overflow-wrap:anywhere}footer{border-top:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding-top:24px;margin-top:40px;font-size:14px}@media(max-width:480px){th,td{padding:10px 4px;font-size:14px}}@media print{body{background:white}.card,.lead{break-inside:avoid}h2,h3{break-after:avoid}}
</style></head><body><main><header><p class="label">Fictional survey / September 1–7, 2026</p><h1>20 of 32 respondents found the guide hard to find.</h1><p class="intro">A signal to investigate navigation—not an estimate for all Moss Workspace customers.</p></header>
<section class="lead"><h2>Read the denominator with the finding.</h2><p>Forty people submitted the voluntary survey. Thirty-two answered the navigation question; eight skipped it.</p></section>
<section><h2>The exact question and result</h2><p>“How easy was it to find the guide?” One selection allowed.</p><div class="grid"><article class="card"><span class="metric">20 / 32</span><h3>Hard to find</h3><p>62.5% of respondents answering Q1.</p></article><article class="card"><span class="metric">12 / 32</span><h3>Easy to find</h3></article></div><p>Eight of the forty respondents did not answer Q1.</p></section>
<section class="warning"><h2>Who this sample represents is not established.</h2><p>Recruitment used a voluntary in-product invitation. The eligible invitation count is unknown, so no invitation response rate is reported. No weighting was applied.</p><p>Do not read 62.5% as a percentage of all customers or all forty respondents.</p></section>
<section><h2>Comments contain overlapping themes</h2><p>Fifteen respondents left open text. The reviewed coding method allows multiple themes per response.</p><ul><li><strong>Navigation:</strong> present in 9 comments.</li><li><strong>Terminology:</strong> present in 7 comments.</li></ul><p>These are not sixteen distinct respondents. The overlap count and links to Q1 answers were not supplied. No quotation text is approved.</p></section>
<section class="card"><p class="label">Proposed next step</p><h2>Understand where the navigation path breaks down.</h2><p>Propose five follow-up conversations. Owner, participants, consent process, and dates still need agreement.</p><p>This finding does not approve recruitment or a redesign, and does not prove that a redesign would solve the issue.</p></section>
<section><h2>Review and source boundary</h2><p>Source: the accompanying fictional survey aggregates and coding notes. No private responses or invented links are included. Record research and design decisions in the existing workflow; this page collects no responses.</p></section><footer>Fictional worked example by share/artifacts. Names, dates, figures and records are invented for demonstration. Static snapshot; no live data or automatic updates.</footer></main></body></html>
The original worked scenarioThe source scenario, step by step
Twenty of thirty-two—not most customers
A fictional voluntary navigation survey. No population-wide estimate is supported.
The original notes
Forty people submitted a voluntary survey from an in-product invitation. Thirty-two answered 'How easy was it to find the guide?'; 20 chose hard to find and 12 chose easy to find. Eight skipped that question. The eligible invitation count is unknown. No weighting was applied. Open text from 15 respondents was coded into overlapping themes: navigation 9, terminology 7; one response can have both. No quotation text is approved. Propose five follow-up conversations, not a confirmed redesign.
Question result
20 of 32 answering respondents chose hard to find; 12 chose easy to find.
Missing answers
Eight of forty respondents skipped that question.
Sample boundary
Voluntary in-product invitation; eligible invitation count unknown and no weighting applied.
Themes
Among 15 open-text respondents, navigation appears in 9 and terminology in 7. Themes overlap.
Next question
Propose five follow-up conversations. The survey does not approve a redesign.
The same finding becomes more credible when the people it describes are unmistakable.
Questions, adaptations & sourcesGo deeper when you need to
Can I show percentages?
Yes, when the denominator and calculation are valid. Include counts and the question context so readers understand what the percentage describes. Do not use the total customer base when the result comes only from respondents.
Why can theme counts exceed the number of comments?
If the documented coding method allows multiple themes per response, one comment can contribute to several categories. Explain that overlap rather than forcing themes to sum to one hundred percent.
Should I include customer quotes?
Only supplied excerpts approved for this audience, with identifying details removed and meaning preserved. Quotes illustrate a perspective; they do not establish its prevalence.