Sol logoSol Helps

Problem

Recurring user confusion that never becomes clear feedback.

Most product teams have plenty of signals about what users are doing. What’s harder to see is where users are consistently misunderstanding the product — especially when those moments don’t turn into tickets, feedback, or obvious drop-offs.

This isn’t about bugs or usability failures. It’s about recurring moments where users hesitate, guess, or proceed with the wrong mental model — and the team never sees a stable pattern.

The question teams struggle to answer is simple: what are users consistently confused about — and where is that confusion coming from?

Want mechanics or fit guidance? How it works ·When Sol Helps is relevant .

Fit signals (this problem is likely present if…)
  • Similar questions repeat, but the root cause is unclear.
  • Docs and onboarding improve, yet confusion returns in new wording.
  • Support answers vary depending on who responds.
  • Onboarding completion looks fine, but activation quality feels uneven.
  • Decisions rely on anecdotes because the pattern never becomes shared evidence.
Repetition without resolution
The same misunderstanding returns across users and surfaces, but never consolidates into a single ‘known issue’.
Silent hesitation
Many users don’t file tickets. They hesitate, guess, or work around the gap — leaving little trace.
Signal fragmentation
Clues spread across support, docs searches, onboarding, and ad-hoc conversations — so patterns stay invisible.
Cost accumulates quietly
Nothing breaks, but drift sets in: inconsistent answers, doc churn, and decisions made with lower confidence.

Recognition

What this looks like in practice

The signals are rarely dramatic. They’re repetitive, slightly different each time, and easy to dismiss.

Repeat questions
Similar questions appear across tickets, Slack, calls, or chat — phrased differently, but pointing at the same gap.
Docs expand, clarity doesn’t
Content grows, but confusion doesn’t reduce in a way the team can confidently attribute to changes.
Low-confidence completion
Users “finish the steps” but still aren’t sure they did the right thing — so they seek confirmation.
Answers drift
Different teammates answer the “same” question differently, because the shared mental model isn’t stable.
The key diagnostic detail

Individually, each instance looks small. Collectively, they create uncertainty about what users actually understand — and whether fixes worked.

Failure mode

Fixes help — but never seem to stick

Teams patch symptoms, see a brief improvement, then the same confusion returns in new wording.

A common loop
A team notices users struggle with a core concept. They update docs, tweak onboarding copy, add a tooltip, or reword UI. Volume dips slightly — then questions return, framed differently.
What’s missing
Not effort. Not competence. The missing piece is a stable, shared view of what users consistently misunderstand — and how each fix changed (or didn’t change) comprehension.
Recurrence pattern

notice → patch → brief improvement → returns differently

When the pattern stays subtle and distributed, teams address symptoms without seeing the whole shape.

Visibility

Why existing signals don’t make this clear

This problem falls between tools designed to track outcomes, not understanding.

Analytics
Analytics show behaviour and outcomes — not interpretation. You can see what happened, but not what users believed was happening.
Support tickets
Tickets capture explicit questions. They miss silent hesitation, quiet workarounds, and users who simply leave.
Surveys & feedback
Feedback summarises opinions after the fact. It rarely captures the moment-to-moment misunderstanding that shaped the journey.
Session replays
Replays can reveal confusion, but they require manual interpretation and don’t scale into a shared, persistent view.
Net effect

Teams end up with activity data, but no shared view of understanding.

Mechanism

What’s actually happening underneath

These moments aren’t random — they cluster around stable comprehension gaps.

Unclear concepts
Users can complete actions without understanding the concept that makes the action meaningful or safe.
Ambiguous terminology
Terms are “correct” but interpreted differently by different users (and sometimes by different teams internally).
Hidden assumptions
Docs and onboarding imply prerequisites that aren’t true for all users — roles, permissions, environment, context, or prior knowledge.
Distributed surfaces
The same misunderstanding appears across onboarding, UI copy, help content, and support — so no single surface “owns” it.
Diagnosis label

Over time, this becomes a pattern of recurring user confusion: the same misunderstandings resurfacing across users, surfaces, and moments — without ever becoming clearly visible as a single issue.

Cost

What this costs teams over time

Not a sudden failure — a slow drift away from shared clarity.

Documentation churn
Docs grow and change, but impact is hard to attribute, so teams keep rewriting without confidence it addresses the true gap.
Answer drift
Support and internal guidance diverge over time as different people compensate for the same unclear concepts in different ways.
Symptom optimisation
Product decisions target surface symptoms rather than the underlying misunderstanding — because the misunderstanding isn’t clearly defined.
Decision risk
Confidence erodes. Teams move forward without a stable, evidence-backed view of where users struggle most.

Tipping point

The moment teams realise this needs attention

It’s usually not one incident — it’s repetition that stops feeling ‘new’.

Repetition becomes obvious
Questions stop being “new” and start repeating. Changes feel reactive rather than confidence-building.
Disagreement appears
Different teams disagree on what users actually struggle with, because evidence is scattered and interpretation is manual.
What teams tend to examine next
  • Where confusion shows up most clearly during onboarding.
  • Which docs pages (or concepts) repeatedly fail to resolve misunderstanding.
  • Which terms, prerequisites, or assumptions cause downstream issues.

This page is diagnosis-first by design. It names the condition and the failure mode — without turning into a product pitch.

Relevance checkMechanicsUse cases