TDMUSIC · progress briefing
← Back to briefing
METHODOLOGY v2 · MIXED METHODS · IDENTIFICATION · MEASUREMENT ERROR · DECISION

How the evidence is made to count.

Two lenses on one design. Quantitative methods: what can be identified, with what error, at what power — a within-subject crossover with an active control, ANCOVA-form mixed models, wearable measurement error handled by calibration and residualisation. Management science: insider action research run as a stage-gate — every source is assigned a role in a Bayesian layer, every test is a purchase of information, and the phase ends at pre-registered gates.

Source: research/METHODOLOGY_DESIGN.md · companions: DECISION_MODEL.md · surveys/questionnaire-v2.md · FOCUS_GROUP_KIT.md · ML_RESEARCH_DESIGN.md

/ 01Overall design

Convergent mixed methods with a sequential quantitative core

Frame: insider action research (Coghlan & Brannick). Process: design thinking. Method architecture: two strands that meet in one Bayesian integration — the qualitative strand generates and interprets, the quantitative strand quantifies and tests.

QUAL strand · generate · interpret
interviews n=6netnography n=200focus groups 2×6–8

Produces the arousal-state hypothesis, the acoustic-feature list, the symptom clusters; enters the model with heavy shrinkage.

→ Bayesian
integration →
gates
QUAN strand · quantify · test
literature = priorssurvey n ≥ 100pilot n = 20–30 × 3landing A/Blegal check

Estimates shares and price points; the pilot estimates a causal within-person effect; behavioural and legal evidence close the gates.

Need

N1 · N2 · N3

Frequent moments (B7) · under-served outcomes (ODI) · state-dependent need and content (C3, FG T1–T2).

Ability

A1 – A5

Content by state · one-session effect on STAI-S and heart-rate measures · connect & value · pay · rights.

Decision

Gates

Posterior thresholds fixed in advance; each source's role bounded by its quality — nothing double-counted.

/ 02Triangulation matrix

Source × construct × role — who is allowed to say what

prior sets the starting belief · generate produces hypotheses · quantify estimates a share/mean · test estimates a causal effect · texture informs interpretation only.

ConstructLiteratureInterviewsNetnographyFocus groupsSurveyPilotLanding / legal
Need prevalence & intensitypriortexturetexturetexturequantify
Timing / place / triggersgeneratemapquantify
Under-served outcomesgeneratecomplaintsrankquantify (ODI)
Content by state (A1a/A1b)weak priorgenerateboth coexiststimulus testquantifyA/B test
Efficacy (A2a/A2b)prioranecdoteanecdotetest
Engagement (A3)precedentabsenceaction gapprobequantifythink-aloudconversion
Willingness to pay (A4)market databilling angerreactionPSM · PI · F9conversion · partners
Rights (A5)label dealslegal check
/ 03Constructs & measurement

Validated where it exists, adapted and disclosed where it doesn't

Validated · verbatim

GAD-2 · PSS-4 · STAI-S(6) · PSM

Kroenke 2007 · Cohen & Williamson 1988 · Marteau & Bekker 1992 · van Westendorp 1976. Wording untouched; α and convergent r reported.

Adapted · cited

TAM · Kano · ODI · DOI · expectancy

Davis 1989 · Kano 1984 · Ulwick 2002 · Rogers 2003 · Devilly & Borkovec 2000. Two items per TAM construct; CFA/PLS-SEM if n ≥ 150.

Objective · noisy

HR · RMSSD / SDNN · residual Δ

Wrist HR accurate (≈ 6%); wrist HRV MAPE ≈ 29% vs chest strap → calibration sub-study, artefact rules, residualisation. Pipeline →

Measurement stance

Biometrics are honest about arousal, not about anxiety

HR/HRV index autonomic arousal — exertion, caffeine, excitement and fear all move them. Self-report (STAI-S) is therefore the construct measure and the primary outcome; heart-rate measures are the mechanism check and the product's control signal. The design reports the concordance between the two rather than assuming it (Panteleeva 2018 found self-report effects without physiological ones).

/ 04Identification strategy · efficacy

A within-subject crossover with an active control, analysed as ANCOVA in a mixed model

Design

3 conditions · Latin-square order · 3 sessions per person

T1 adaptive neutral sound · T2 adaptive calm real song · C active control = a generic "relaxing" playlist the participant already uses (not silence — silence changes expectancy and confounds "any audio" with "our audio").

15 min, seated, same time-of-day, ≥ 24 h washout; pre/post STAI-S(6), expectancy items, 5-min rest baseline; a research assistant runs the script (the founder does not).

Estimand & model

Within-person effect on change, baseline-adjusted

Post_ij = β0 + β1·T1_ij + β2·T2_ij + β3·Pre_ij + β4·Order_ij + β5·Expect_ij + β6·Session#_ij + u_i + ε_ij u_i ~ N(0, σ²_u)

β1, β2 = effect vs active control at equal baseline; β1 − β2 answers A1a on the outcome itself. Report 95% CI, d_z, ICC — and a Bayesian re-analysis with the meta-analytic prior (variance ×2): P(β1 < 0 | data) drives the gate. ANCOVA form over raw change scores (Vickers & Altman 2001).

ThreatDirectionControl
Expectancy / placeboinflates Tactive control; expectancy measured and entered as covariate; analyst blinded to labels; all arms described as "calming audio"
Regression to the meaninflates any dropbaseline covariate; 5-min rest so baseline is not the arrival spike
Order / carry-overbiases later sessionsLatin square; Order and Session# covariates; washout
Circadian HRVnoise / bias if unbalancedfixed slot per participant; covariate
Motion, caffeine, speechartefactsseated protocol; accelerometer masking; 2-h rule logged
Founder demand effectsinflates TRA-run sessions; founder absent; blinded analysis
Multiple outcomesfalse positivesone primary (STAI-S); secondaries with Holm correction
Small nlow power for physiology3 sessions/person; Bayesian analysis; feasibility framing

Wearable measurement error — what it does and what to do

As an outcome

Classical (non-differential) error adds variance → loss of power, not bias. Remedy: more sessions per person; HR (accurate) as co-primary physiological outcome, RMSSD secondary; average the last 5 min.

As a regressor

Errors-in-variables → attenuation. Remedy: calibration sub-study (n ≈ 8, Polar H10 concurrent) → reliability ratio λ, regression calibration / instrument the wrist value with the chest value.

Differential error

A beat-driven track could induce motion → biased comparison. Remedy: pre-specified artefact rules, motion-flag rate compared across arms, sensitivity analysis on clean windows.

Residualisation

Two-stage: (i) person-specific baseline model on ≥ 14 days of non-session data (time-of-day, activity, recent HR); (ii) outcome = observed − predicted over the session. Interpretable as "calmer than your usual 10 pm" — the same number the product shows. Kalman smoothing before features.

/ 05Sampling & power

Honest about what n = 20 can and cannot show

Survey
n ≥ 100

± 9.8 pp (± 8 pp at 150); cells ≥ 40 owners, ≥ 30 GAD-2+; McNemar 80% power for a 20-pp shift

Focus groups
2–3 × 6–8

saturation, stimulus reaction; stop when a group adds no new code

Pilot · paired t, α .05, power .8
d_z .5→34 · .65→21 · .8→15

Cochrane STAI-S ≈ d .55 → n ≈ 28 for self-report; physiology d ≈ .4 → n ≈ 50

Therefore
20–30 × 3

feasibility signal for A2a, under-powered for A2b — stated; Bayesian posterior with meta-analytic prior drives the gate, not p

/ 06Insider bias · qualitative rigour

Controls that are actually implementable by a founder-researcher

Confirmation

Thresholds and LRs pre-registered; the model built before the data; kill criteria written down; a negative result is a valid outcome.

Demand effects

Research assistants run sessions and groups with scripts; the founder is absent from rooms; the survey is anonymous.

Analyst freedom

The analysis code and thresholds are written and tested before the data are analysed (pre-registered plan); one primary outcome; deviations logged.

Thematic analysis

Braun & Clarke; hybrid codebook from netnography codes; second coder on 20% (κ ≥ .70); saturation criterion; member checks on reconstructed interviews.

How qualitative evidence counts

Enters the Bayesian layer only after shrinkage (k = .35–.5) and correlation discounting; can move a belief, cannot cross a gate alone — the formal answer to "how much do 3 interviews count".

Reflexivity

Researcher diary; a reflexivity section in the methods chapter; limitations stated up front (non-probability samples, hypothetical WTP, small pilot, consumer physiology, subjective LRs).

/ 07Management-science lens

Evidence as a stage-gate: each test is a purchase of information

Real options

Order tests by information per cost

Legal check first (cheapest, most decisive: LR 8 / 0.15) → survey → pilot. The DT phase is an option on the MVP, not a commitment (Bowman & Hurry; McGrath).

Portfolio

C1 · C2 · C3 are hedges, not rivals

C3 probes real-music calm demand at near-zero cost; C2 hedges consumer-payment friction; C1 is the asset-leverage bet. Gates select which to fund.

Ambidexterity

A ring-fenced team can kill honestly

Small separate team, $10–20k, ≤ 3 months — the organisational condition for a real kill decision (O'Reilly & Tushman).

WkActivityOutput → node
1Legal check on ≥ 50 tracks starts; survey back-translation + n = 3 pilot; landing A/B liveA5 (LR 8/0.15) · A3/A4 conversion
2–4Survey fielding (n ≥ 100); FG-1, FG-2 recruited from opt-insA1a/A1b/A3/A4 survey LRs · FG themes
3–5Calibration sub-study (n = 8, Polar H10); WoZ pilot 20–30 × 3 sessionsA2a / A2b
6Pre-registered pipeline → Bayesian update → gate verdict → decision memoPROCEED / PIVOT / KILL