Draft · work in progress

Design Story · Flagship · AI experience design

LEDGER

Designing trust into an AI policy assistant used by 250,000 people. As sole owner of the UI and UX, I turned a promising language model into something policy knowledge-workers could actually rely on — where every answer shows its sources, holds up to scrutiny, and survives a skeptical room of policy, legal, and executive stakeholders.

95%Reduction in lookup time
17Usability tests
LEDGER's landing screen: a dark interface headed 'What can I help with?', a prompt box reading 'How can PRISM help you?', and Summarize / Outline shortcuts.
The LEDGER landing screen — shown in build under the codename PRISM.

The brief

A U.S. government client set out to put an AI assistant in front of hundreds of thousands of employees to help them navigate dense, high-stakes policy. The technology worked. The question was whether people would trust it enough to use it — and whether the experience could earn the confidence of the policy, legal, and executive stakeholders who had to stand behind every answer it gave.

The problem, reframed

Usability testing with policy knowledge-workers surfaced the real requirement early: source transparency and response precision were non-negotiable. An answer without a traceable source wasn’t just less useful — it was unusable. That single finding reframed the work from “design a chat UI” to “design a system people can verify.”

What I decided

Findings drove the interaction model toward visible, checkable sourcing; motivated architecture changes to support multi-turn conversation, so users could refine and pin down an answer; and shaped a CRIT prompting guide — Context, Role, Interview, Task — built to teach policy knowledge-workers to get better answers in less time. That same guide doubled as our UAT test scenarios: the prompts that modeled good use were the ones we validated against. I also resolved navigation and discoverability issues before launch.

The outcome

LEDGER shipped to roughly 250,000 users with buy-in built across a skeptical coalition of policy, legal, and senior executives. In testing, the experience cut the time to find and verify a policy answer by about 95% against the old multi-document slog — the product of 17 rounds of usability testing that hardened the interaction model before launch.

User education · The prompting guide

Teaching people to trust it.

A guide I authored to help knowledge-workers get better answers in less time. It never shipped to end users, but it captures the approach — and doubled as our UAT test scenarios.

Context

Set the stage — the situation, why it matters, and who’s involved.

“I work in an oversight office at a federal agency…”

Role

Say who you need the assistant to write as, or for.

“Act as a policy reviewer…”

Interview

Ask it to surface risks, weigh trade-offs, or walk through its reasoning.

“What risks should I consider?”

Task

Be specific about what you want it to produce.

“Provide a comparison of…”

Instead of this

telework policy privacy requirements

Try this

I supervise a team at agency headquarters, and an employee has requested a remote-work accommodation. Walk me through how the current telework policy applies, and my options.

The CRIT framework is adapted from The AI-Driven Leader by Geoff Woods.