Preserve the question and material
The receiving team needs to know what was examined and why. Identify the relevant version of the interface or prototype, the audience, and the task context. A recommendation detached from that information can be applied in a situation the research never addressed.
The output should also identify important assistance, simulated behavior, or limitations that influenced the observation. Those details are part of the evidence, not merely administrative notes.
Connect evidence to a proposed response
A findings record can distinguish the observation, the interpretation, the product consequence, and the recommended action. This makes it possible for a reviewer to question one part without discarding the entire report.
Recommendations should be specific enough to guide the next conversation. They might identify a term to clarify, a navigation relationship to change, or a product rule that needs a decision before the wording can be revised.
Support revision without inventing certainty
A proposed wording or layout can illustrate the response, but it is not automatically a tested solution. Mark the distinction between what was observed and what is suggested. Explain which further review would help assess the revision.
If the work leaves a question unresolved, the output should state that clearly and describe why. A useful handover can include a narrower next question rather than an unsupported declaration that the issue is solved.
Agree how the team will use the result
A review conversation can help stakeholders interpret the findings and select next actions. The handover should identify who owns those decisions and what source material is included. A compact, traceable brief may be more useful than a large collection of disconnected comments.
Further design, implementation, recurring studies, or ongoing support are separately scoped. The final output should leave the team with a clear account of the evidence and the practical next step within the agreed responsibilities.