A creative solution is useful only if the challenge is understood. “People leave” is a symptom; it does not say who leaves, when, what they expected, or which limits must be respected. Separating facts, interpretations, and questions prevents solving the wrong problem.

For Lumen, “there is drop-off during setup” is a fact to clarify. “The form is too long” is a hypothesis. “At which field does each user type hesitate?” is a question. Gather proportionate evidence: journeys, support notes, error examples, and authorised conversations.

A useful statement includes person, situation, need, desired outcome, and constraints. Lumen writes: “People creating their first service need to understand which information is essential during setup so they can complete it independently, without hidden conditions or unnecessary requests.”

“How might we...?” opens alternatives: “How might we help people identify needed information before publishing?” It should not already contain a preferred solution.

Make a table of facts, hypotheses, and questions for one situation. Then write a problem statement and an open challenge question.

Fact: requests arrive without context. Hypothesis: the form does not explain what is expected. Question: which field causes most confusion? Challenge: “How might we help people provide minimum context without increasing their workload?”

• Defining the problem with a solution embedded in it.
• Searching for a single cause too early.
• Ignoring people who will live with the solution.

Identifying a challenge requires distinguishing evidence from interpretation, naming a concrete need, and respecting constraints. With Lumen's question defined, we can generate alternatives deliberately.