Interview coding becomes useful when every code points to a transcript passage, observations remain separate from interpretation, and the code set follows the decision the team must make.
Define what the study must decide
A transcript can support many readings, so a coding pass needs a bounded decision question before it begins. Choosing a buyer segment requires evidence about current behavior, stakes, alternatives, triggers, authority, and disqualifiers. Prioritizing a workflow may require frequency, sequence, failure cost, and workaround evidence. The research question determines which passages deserve codes and which details can remain background.
Participant attributes belong beside the transcript rather than inside a guessed persona. The table records only the attributes the study intentionally collected and the buyer is authorized to use. A participant can appear in several candidate groups, so segment codes should describe observable conditions instead of forcing each person into one permanent label.
Separate observation, quote, and interpretation
The GOV.UK Service Manual tells analysis teams to write what they saw or heard before deciding what it means. A practical evidence row therefore keeps the verbatim passage and transcript location, a plain observation, the analyst's interpretation, and the decision it may affect in separate fields. Another reviewer can challenge the interpretation without losing the underlying record.
Codes should describe a repeated kind of evidence, such as switched tools after billing error, requested manager approval, or abandoned workflow after manual export. Broad labels such as pain point or loves automation hide the mechanism. A codebook entry includes the inclusion rule, exclusion rule, and at least one passage so two reviewers can apply it consistently.
Preserve weak and negative evidence
A vague endorsement, hypothetical feature request, or interviewer-supplied benefit receives a lower evidence label than a detailed account of recent behavior. Negative cases remain visible when a participant in the apparent target segment lacks the problem, uses a satisfactory alternative, or cannot authorize a purchase. The coded record becomes decision-grade when it shows what the interview did not establish as plainly as what it appears to support.
Where the service stops
Reality Contact, LLC analyzes authorized research materials, but does not recruit or contact participants, obtain consent, make product decisions, claim population representation, provide ethics approval, or treat a model-generated theme as evidence without source review. The buyer confirms consent and data-handling authority, reviews the source-linked dossier, chooses the primary segment, and approves the next offer, product, or research test. This is qualitative research analysis and document preparation, and it does not replace consent review, privacy counsel, ethics review, statistical research, or the buyer's product judgment. Findings describe the supplied interviews and their known limits; they do not estimate market prevalence or establish that a segment will buy.
Sources: GOV.UK research-session analysis guidance; GOV.UK note and recording guidance.