Process discovery — find the process, then the tools

Load when: the work is of a kind whose steps are not obvious — designing something, running a launch, building a content operation, anything where "how is this done well" has an answer nobody here knows yet.

The failure this prevents is concrete. Asked to design an app, a worker searched its skills for "designer", found nothing usable, and hand-drew gradient placeholders — two to five minutes per screen of garbage — while a flow library, a component library and a wireframing tool sat one rephrase away.

And the fix is not a built-in design pipeline. That is the encyclopedia trap: a hardcoded ladder is right for one domain and wrong for every other one, and this system is meant to work for a channel and a bakery too. The fix is a repeatable step for discovering a process, which is why it is named once here and reused everywhere there is a how rather than a what.

Five steps

1 · Research how the craft does it well — not from memory. The web, live documentation, awesome-{topic}, and the descriptions of skills that already exist. For "design a mobile app" this surfaces something like information architecture → user flows → low-fidelity wireframes → the owner approves the structure → high fidelity → design system. For a snack brand it surfaces something else entirely. You are finding this craft's process, not applying a stored one.

2 · Draft it as a table — one row per step: step · why · tool-or-gap.

The why is what lets the owner judge it — low fidelity before high fidelity because approving structure on cheap artifacts saves the days that redrawing finished screens costs.

The table is the form that cannot skip a step silently: every row must end in a tool line, and a step with no tool IS a gap — written as gap in that cell, never left blank. A blank cell reads as "handled"; the word gap reads as what it is. This is form doing work that prose cannot.

3 · Show the owner: cut, add, reorder — in their words. This is where a designer who skips wireframes gets caught, and where an owner who wants it faster can say so before rather than after.

4 · Search a tool per surviving step, by the step's function. Not one literal string. Use the broadening ladder: rephrase into the craft's own English terms · go one level up to the parent domain · adjacent crafts · decompose the step into tasks and search per task. "Map the user journeys" finds a flow library; "designer" finds nothing.

5 · Name the gaps. A step with no tool is stated as such — build something for it, or do it by hand and say which. A gap named is honest; a gap papered over with improvisation is how the garbage happened.

Record the process — into the machinery, not beside it

A discovered process lands as a type and its pipeline. _ops/process/types/<kind>.md carries the definition of done and the cut on the description ladder — proposed at the type's wave — and _ops/pipelines/<name>.md carries the stages and the gates as data the door reads (pipelines, writing-work). So the next run of the same kind of work starts from it rather than rediscovering it, the state block and the transition validator work from day one, and a better process found later is a diff to a file rather than a silent drift. Prose keeps the why; the files are the process.

That is the same reason decisions are recorded: not to have a record, but so the next person argues with the previous answer instead of re-deriving it.

The same five steps, run on a question

Product discovery — what do we know about the problem — is this method pointed at a question instead of a craft. Its findings have three homes: the spec's own fields — prior attempts with outcomes, open questions, the cost of doing nothing (templates/SPEC-template.md) — the interviews, which walk the JTBD timeline (audience), and the choice, which runs the decision loop. A research type's own chain — facts → insights → opportunities → recommendations, each layer carrying its confidence — arrives from the craft's standards at the type's wave, never as a built-in pipeline: the same anti-encyclopedia law as everywhere in this file. The opportunity layer is the one teams skip: an insight names what is true, an opportunity names a need it opens, and jumping from insight straight to a solution is how a feature ships with no need under it — the discovery spine the craft itself now teaches is outcome → opportunities → solutions → assumption tests (catalogue, the frames row). The tree those links form is a view, never a source — assembled from the specs' own references (patterns §6), not drawn beside them.

And discovery is a cadence, not a phase. The craft's own practice literature (sources/ → perspective-ost-2026, cited): the commonest failure is not a wrong tree but a starved one — evidence refreshed quarterly under opportunities that change weekly. Where a project runs product discovery at all, the stock answer is an automation holding the touchpoint (automations), and interview evidence carries its date like every other fact: past its recheck it is unknown, not background.

This is one method, used in four places

The interview, the discovery checklist, the role builder and this file are the same shape: research the real thing, draft it with reasons, show it for cutting, then tool each surviving step.

Naming it once is what stops it being re-invented per situation with slightly different rules each time — which is the whole argument for patterns.

When to reach for it

When the process is not obvious, and specifically:

• the work is in a craft nobody here has done
• a previous attempt improvised and the output was bad — run it on the redo, and it names the steps and the tool each needs rather than one worker winging it
• the owner asks "how should we run this kind of work?"
• a step keeps producing bounced reviews, which usually means a missing step earlier

When not to: a quick job, and anything whose process is already written down and working. Discovering a process that exists is ceremony.