Case study 02 · Enterprise UX · Shipped
Designing
for judgment.
Reframing a dense moderation workspace so experts could make faster decisions without losing the context behind them.
01 · Context
A tool built around fields, not decisions.
Moderators approve, reject, edit, and delete products under time pressure. The existing CMP spread evidence and controls across a dense interface, increasing cognitive load on every review.
02 · Research
Watch experts build a mental model.
I combined a heuristic evaluation with contextual inquiry across categories and seniority levels. Moderators worked through real queues in think-aloud sessions, while seller-side research exposed the downstream cost of inconsistent rejection decisions.
03 · Insights
Efficiency came from context.
Experts scan by risk
They do not read the page top to bottom; they jump to evidence that changes the decision.
Guidelines arrive too late
Rules outside the task interrupt flow and force memory-dependent judgment.
Editing and deciding compete
Corrective work obscures the primary approve-or-reject outcome.
Speed alone is unsafe
Review time needs quality guardrails such as reversals and repeated rejection reasons.
04 · Solution
A decision-first workspace.
I reorganized the information architecture around the review decision, then designed contextual guidelines, clearer duplicate detection, and a dedicated senior QA workflow.
Anchor the decision
Keep approve, reject, and reason selection visible and distinct.
Progressively reveal evidence
Prioritize product identity, imagery, attributes, brand, and category by risk.
Measure the real workflow
Track review time, edits, guideline use, rejection reasons, and reversals.
Less interface hunting.
More deliberate review.
05 · Outcome
Faster—with a quality guardrail.
After launch, the number of products reviewed per moderator per hour increased by 10%. Duplicate detection improved, unnecessary navigation decreased, and the workflow became more consistent across experience levels.