UX Research Planning: Why Bad Research Starts Upstream

Better questions. Better decisions.

This isn’t a tool that helps you write a research plan. It helps you avoid bad research.

Built on Curiosity Tank’s methodology. Designed to challenge assumptions, surface tradeoffs, and create research that actually holds up.

Non-traditional research enablement for a new standard.

Beyond platforms. Beyond templates, AI-driven. Human-led.

Most research platforms optimize for analysis. But bad research is decided upstream. In the plan.

I’ve been building and beta testing an AI companion for true research enablement over the past few weeks, built for that exact gap.

And beta testing didn’t tweak it. It changed everything. The name, tagline, and even how it pushes back have changed.

What started as “Research Plan Assistant” is now Plan Like A Pro: Together—because “assistant” felt like an intern. This behaves like a senior research partner.

The tagline went from “a research plan that writes back” → “the research plan that pushes back.” And that shift shows up in the moments that matter.

One participant put in a 7-day recruiting window. The early version said “great.” Now it says, “here’s what you’re trading off if you do that.” That’s the difference.

It helps you avoid authorizing bad research.

13 beta sessions so far. Every one broke something. Every one made it better.

I’m running more sessions next week. If you have a real research need or project, or even a messy starting point, I’d love to run it through this with you.

Let’s see where it breaks, together. It’s genuinely more fun than it sounds.