The wording slides easily into after-the-fact explanation

What it is

The product is already “smart expense filing,” so the job is written “users want to file expenses smartly.” That is not a job discovered. It is the proposal conjugated into the past tense. Post-hoc explanation means the job wording did not grow from a hiring event; it was fitted, after the ending was known, with a sentence that sounds like a motive. It can hardly be slapped: anyone who bought can be said to have hired that job.

Why it happens

People are good at supplying reasons for a choice already made. If the interview starts with “what do you feel this product helps you accomplish,” the answers are praise of the current scheme, not the pressure and candidates of the moment. The slogan template (when I…, I want…, so that…) then gives after-the-fact reasons a ready mold; filling it looks like theory. Teams also need to explain to the outside why these features were built, so the job statement takes a communications job. Communications succeeds when it is round: feature, job, and user quote confirm one another, and no one can show that the statement did not exist before the purchase.

Studying it

Require a job statement to predict a choice that has not happened yet (whom they will hire, under which pressure they will re-hire), and test it on later events. In already-finished interviews, code separately statements written after the ending was known and statements written from pre-event material only. Check whether unique capability words from the current product (smart, one-tap, auto) are embedded in the statement; more embedding, more after-the-fact. Outcomes: prediction hits, capability-word density, and whether the statement still differs from a generic wish once the product name is gone.

Where it stops holding

Every retrospective interview has some after-the-fact in it; that is not a reason to abolish recall. Split “candidates and pressure then” from “evaluation now” into two questioning stretches. Strategy narrative may use a tight sentence externally if it is labeled not-evidence. Post-hoc labels in analytics (“they have this job because they retained”) are the same circle and do not become a finding by being numeric. Conversely, writing the job first and then building the product does not make the statement true; hiring events still have to be seen.

Applying it

• Ban capability words from the current scheme in the statement; capabilities may appear later, as applicants for the job.
• Lock the event timeline (pressure, candidates, choice, outcome) before writing the job sentence. If the order flipped, keep it as a draft, not a report line.
• Give the statement a prediction that can fail: under which new pressure people will re-hire. If none can be written, treat it as a communications sentence.
• In review, hide the product blurb and leave the job sentence. Ask whether an observation note from before launch could have supported it. If not, downgrade it to after-the-fact explanation.

Related

• Same group: Q4.08.1 Attend to what the user hires the product to do · Q4.08.2 The competitive set is bounded by the job, not the category
• Adjacent: Q1.02.3 Using exploratory data to confirm a hypothesis is circular · Q4.03 Personas
• Search terms: JTBD as post-hoc explanation · retrospective justification · circular job statement