Retiring the time to entry metric as a headline

Context

For a phase of the project, one number ran the roadmap: entering a transaction in Clarity took roughly 32.6 seconds against roughly 7 seconds in Excel. It sat in bold at the top of the notes, with a design review built around closing the gap.

Decision

The metric was dropped as a headline and the roadmap rebuilt on what the dentist actually said when asked directly. He likes the entry screen, specifically the autofill. His spreadsheet was faster because it never asked who the patient was, just dropdowns and an amount box, doing strictly less work than Clarity does. He was not worried about seven seconds.

Alternatives rejected

Continuing to optimise toward the Excel baseline as a design goal was rejected, because it was chasing a number the user did not actually experience as a problem.

Why

The comparison was three measurements, n=3, on a user still learning the tool, comparing two different jobs: Excel never captured a patient, Clarity does. One question to the actual user settled what a published metric had not.

Consequences

The roadmap moved to what he actually flagged: too many tabs, a "History" label that reads as patient history rather than transaction history, and a request for notes between visits. The exit criterion survives only as an internal target, re-derived as under 10 seconds, Excel's 7 seconds plus roughly 3 for the patient field Excel never captured, making it an apples to apples comparison for the first time. It is a target, not a gate, and not a headline. The honest mistake: the question that killed the original metric should have been asked on day one.

Status

Current. See overview and numbers.