Atomic notes for product teams: Daniel Pidcock's "Atomic Research" (2018)

The same instinct as atomic notes, applied to design research. Instead of reports that gather dust, knowledge is broken into experiments ("we did this"), facts ("we found this"), insights ("which makes us think this") and conclusions ("so we'll do that"), all linked. Many facts can support or refute an insight across studies, and an insight can stand or fall on evidence long after the original report is forgotten. Keeping observation separate from interpretation is a useful habit in personal notes too.

Where I'm less sure: Pidcock co-founded Glean.ly, a tool built on this model, so the article is partly a pitch. No fact is entirely free of interpretation, and splitting findings apart can strip away context (he admits a finding may hold only for one screen or one persona). Research repositories also need upkeep that teams often don't sustain.

Question: Do you keep "what I observed" and "what I think it means" in separate notes or together? Has separating them ever changed your conclusion?