Level-up your critiques in 3 questions

By Hannah Baker

Dear Reader,

You know the critique that starts with “quick feedback” and ends 45 minutes later with five conflicting opinions and no next step?

Or the one where a senior voice speaks first and the room quietly aligns, even when the data points elsewhere.

Here’s a simple pattern, adapted from Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS), that pulls critiques out of taste debates and into clearer decisions.

What VTS is (in 60 seconds)

VTS is a facilitation pattern from the museum world that trains groups to look closely, name evidence, and consider multiple reads, without the facilitator injecting their own opinion.

The basic flow: a short silent look, then three questions that move the room from observation → evidence → exploration.

The same structure works beautifully on product screens, flows, and research artifacts.

The 3 VTS questions (copy me)

1) What’s going on in this [screen/flow/data]?
2) What do you see that makes you say that [specific claim]?
3) What more can we find?

Why it works: these prompts discipline the conversation, see first, cite evidence, then explore together, so you get high-signal input without rewriting the brief or debating taste.

Curious to go deeper? I break down VTS origins, examples, and facilitation tips in this blog post.

How the pattern sounds in a product critique

Facilitator (silent look - 1:00):
“Let’s take one minute to look silently.”

Facilitator (frame):
“Decision today: ready for handoff or one more explore on clarity and state coverage.”

Facilitator (Q1):
“What’s going on in this sign-up flow?"

Participant A:
“It reads as a standard email verification flow. Where it might wobble is clarity and polish: the two ‘verify email’ screens look like pre- and post-entry states, but they feel very similar, so the transition might not be obvious. I’m also not seeing progress cues, and the final ‘CONTINUE’ could be more specific.”

Facilitator (neutral paraphrase):
“You’re seeing a straightforward flow with possible clarity gaps around state change, perhaps missing progress cues, and a CTA that possibly could be more explicit.”

Facilitator (Q2):
“What do you see that makes you say the transitions might not be obvious?”

Participant A:
“On one ‘verify email’ screen, the field is empty; on the next, it’s filled and the input is outlined in red. Red usually signals an error, but there’s no helper text or icon, so it could read as an error without guidance rather than a normal next state. Without a ‘Step x of y’ or another progress cue, that change might also feel unclear in the overall journey.”

Facilitator (neutral paraphrase):
“So you’re noticing a subtle state change, and the red outline, without supporting hint text, might imply an error without explaining what to do next; combined with no explicit progress indicator, the transition could be hard to track.”

Facilitator (Q3):
“What more can we find?”

Why this works

VTS anchors discussion in what’s observable rather than who’s speaking.

The silent start gives everyone space to form an independent read before hearing others. The three questions build shared evidence; neutral paraphrasing keeps status and taste from dominating; and a clear close turns the critique into a decision ritual, not a feelings round.

Use this at work: the VTS Crit Pattern (copy/paste)

Purpose
Run a critique that stays with evidence and ends in a decision.

Roles
Facilitator · Presenter · Notetaker (can be the facilitator)

Flow

Silent look (~1 min)
“Let’s take a minute to look quietly.”
Frame the decision
“Decision today: ready for handoff or one more itereation on X.”
Q1: Open the room
“What’s going on in this (artifact)?”
Paraphrase (neutral/conditional):
"It sounds like this flow could be straightforward, with a few areas that might be unclear.”
Q2 : Focus on one claim and ask for evidence
“What do you see that makes you say [specific claim, e.g., ‘the transition might be unclear’]?”
Paraphrase & link (neutral/conditional):
“So you’re pointing to [detail], which might suggest [impact]. I’m also hearing [related detail].”
Q3: Open it back up
“What more can we find before we decide?”
Repeat steps 4 & 5
Decide & capture
“Based on what we’ve seen, are we ready for handoff, or do we need one more iteration on X?”

Record owner + next step + by when. If not deciding, name what’s missing and who is responsible. Share the note with your team space.

Now add facilitation, after they “get it”

Once the room understands the loop, these two moves help it land:

Paraphrase neutrally. “You’re noticing…,” “I’m hearing…,” “So far I’m hearing two reads….” Reflect and link; don’t judge. This keeps you neutral and lowers the ego in the room.
Stay conditional. Use might / could / possibly / it seems. Conditional language invites more evidence instead of steering toward your preferred take.

Copy-paste lines you can use tomorrow

“What’s going on in this first-time setup flow?”
“What do you see that makes you say the primary CTA gets lost?”
“What more can we find before we decide handoff vs. one more explore?”

Tiny takeaway

Replace one “What do you think?” with “What do you see that makes you say that?” this week. Watch the shift from opinion to evidence.

Make VTS muscle memory. Early bird ends tomorrow, Fri, Aug 22

Early bird pricing ends soon — save €200 on Facilitating Workshops by Aug 22.for facilitating workshops

Enroll in a live, practice-first cohort designed for product and UX designers. You’ll work in a small group and get coached as you go. We run Sept 29–Nov 6.

Practice it live (save €200)