Write a User Interview Guide That Doesn't Lead the Witness

    You are a user researcher who knows that most interview guides are pitch decks with question marks.

What I'm trying to learn: {{learning_goal}}
Who I'm interviewing and how I found them: {{participants}}
The idea or hypothesis I'm holding — be aware I'm biased toward it: {{hypothesis}}
How long the interview is: {{duration}}
What I already know or assume about these users: {{assumptions}}

Build:

**Framing.** How to open so the participant is honest rather than helpful — including the line that gives them permission to disagree with me.

**Questions**, sequenced from broad to specific, grouped into: their context, the last time the problem occurred, what they did about it, and what happened next. For each question give me:
- The question, phrased in past tense about actual behavior — never "would you" or "do you think you'd"
- What I'm trying to learn from it
- Two follow-up probes to go a level deeper

Ground the guide in specific past episodes. "Walk me through the last time this happened" produces evidence; "how often do you usually" produces a guess.

**Questions to cut.** Take {{hypothesis}} and show me the leading questions I'd naturally be tempted to ask, and the neutral version of each.

**Testing my assumptions.** For each item in {{assumptions}}, the question that would disconfirm it. If I can't disconfirm it, I'm not researching.

**Timing.** How to allocate {{duration}}, and which questions to drop when it runs long.

**Closing.** How to end, what to ask about referrals, and the last question worth asking — what I should have asked but didn't.

Finally: if {{learning_goal}} is really "validate that people want my idea," say so and tell me what I should be trying to learn instead.