SHARP55

Certainties, Suppositions and Doubts

What we know, assume, and need to learn

We knew Sharp55 revealed hidden risks by analyzing behavioral conduct, and that its value was proven in enterprise use. We assumed the term “conduct” might need context, and that use cases would clarify more than technical specs.

We didn’t know how far we could push abstract terms like “invisible risk”, or how much legal depth users expect before they lose interest. This mapping defined what to test, what to explain, and what to prove.

Hypothesis Mapping and Prioritization

From intuition to strategic validation

To bridge assumptions and outcomes, I converted each insight into clear, testable hypotheses. These included questions such as:

• “Would grouping functionalities by risk type improve clarity?”
• “Does presenting real-time risk examples increase perceived relevance?”
• “Will highlighting conduct over score increase confidence in pre-approval?”

Each hypothesis was evaluated based on impact and test effort, forming a prioritization matrix that guided what to validate first. We focused on high-impact, low-effort hypotheses to quickly align messaging, interface and value perception around what truly drives decision-making.

This strategic framing ensured that every design decision could be linked to evidence, not just preference.

User Research

Listening to the language of trust

To validate our hypotheses, I conducted remote interviews with synthetic enterprise users, decision-makers in credit, risk, and fraud roles, using high-fidelity prototypes and guided conversations. We explored how these users interpreted Sharp55’s promise, interface, and terminology.

Key findings revealed:

• Users are unfamiliar with the term “conduct analysis”, but resonate with its outcomes when framed as risk prediction before scoring.
• Decision-makers expect fast understanding, with preference for before/after scenarios instead of technical flows.
• Visual simplicity helps, but only when paired with quantifiable ROI and operational impact.
• The term “monitoramento” (monitoring) sparked positive interest when tied to alert-based action.

These insights reinforced the need to reframe product education into business narratives, using storytelling that connects conduct analysis to risk reduction, decision automation and revenue growth.

Strategic Benchmarking

In a saturated market of credit scoring and risk analytics platforms, standing out requires more than advanced technology, it demands clarity, positioning, and trust.

To frame Sharp55’s design strategy, I benchmarked 14 competitors across fraud prevention, credit intelligence, decision automation, and compliance. Platforms like ClearSale, Idwall, Neoway, TransUnion, Provenir, and Uplexis revealed consistent gaps: complex messaging, overuse of technical jargon, and underuse of storytelling around product impact.

While many of these tools claim reliability, very few manage to translate data into confidence or explain why their insights matter at a business level.

This analysis uncovered a key opportunity: position Sharp55 as the only solution focused on behavioral and reputational conduct, with a language that balances performance, risk mitigation, and strategic ROI.

Instead of blending into a crowded category, the product narrative would shift from “data access” to “behavioral intelligence that protects growth”.

User-Centered Design Canvas

Designing around needs, not features

To align Sharp55’s interface and messaging with user expectations, I structured a full UCDC, connecting user profiles, tasks, context, pain points and business goals. Key outcomes from the canvas included:

• Business goals: emphasize performance (ROI, speed, compliance) and reduce manual analysis costs.
• User needs: clarity, trust, and proof that Sharp55 reveals what traditional credit tools miss.
• Tasks: understand risks before scoring, simulate client behavior, and monitor ongoing exposure.
• Pain points: technical language, fragmented tools, over-reliance on financial-only signals.
• Emotional drivers: confidence, authority, and strategic decision-making, while avoiding fear-based messaging.

The canvas helped structure Sharp55’s UX flow into progressive layers of trust: from clear messaging and differentiators, to real examples, and finally integration and technical depth. Design became a tool to translate intelligence into confidence.

Structure and Functionality

Turning complexity into a navigable experience

The site was structured to highlight outcomes first, fewer defaults, faster approvals, real-time risk insights. Content was grouped by purpose, not tech.
Each section was built to deliver fast understanding for executives, with deeper layers for technical users.

Form followed focus: clear value, zero noise.

Approach & Strategy

The goal wasn’t to explain what Sharp55 does but to show what changes when it’s used. I focused on outcome-first communication: KPIs, before/after flows, and real-world cases. Features were grouped by use case, not tech. Language was stripped of jargon and built around trust, not detail.

The strategy: deliver insight, not interface.

Key Learnings

This project reinforced that:

• “Conduct” only works when tied to outcome.
• Executives decide in seconds not slides.
• Clarity converts better than complexity.
• The page layout is as persuasive as the product.

Design isn’t just how it looks, it’s how you prove you know what matters.