Recall: Between-Session Support Customer Validation

Why this work matters

Recall is being developed as a mobile-first tool for men working on anger and escalation alongside professional support. It is designed to support preparation, access to practised tools, reflection and continuity between facilitated sessions. It does not replace therapy, counselling, anger-management programs, crisis services, accountability or human relationships.

Before making stronger product or market assumptions, we plan to test whether we understand the real between-session work already being done by therapists, counsellors, anger-management facilitators and related professionals.

This is customer and problem discovery. It is not a clinical study, a test of professional quality or evidence that Recall produces a particular outcome.

The question we are investigating

How does a provider or program currently support people between facilitated sessions, and where—if anywhere—does that process break down?

The assessment is deliberately product-neutral. It must be capable of finding that:

• an existing approach already works well;
• paper, conversation, worksheets, phone notes or another tool is a better fit;
• no additional technology is needed;
• clients or providers do not want another app;
• a proposed feature would add more burden than value; or
• Recall is addressing only a small or low-priority part of the problem.

Recall must earn its relevance from evidence. The assessment is not designed to manufacture agreement with the product.

Who the first pretest is for

The initial pretest is intended for 3–5 professionals who regularly work with men around anger, escalation, emotional regulation or related behavioural work, including:

• anger-management group facilitators;
• therapists;
• counsellors; and
• professionals using meaningfully different between-session approaches.

This first round is about whether the questions understand real provider workflows. It is not a sales campaign or a product trial.

The 12-question provider pretest

Participants are asked to think about one program or part of their practice and answer using the past eight weeks. If there were few relevant opportunities, Not sure is preferable to guessing.

Response options

Use the same options for every question:

1. Not in place when relevant
2. In place inconsistently
3. Usually in place, with exceptions
4. Consistently in place in situations I know about
5. Not sure / not enough experience
6. Does not apply to this program's agreed scope
7. Prefer not to answer

Paper, conversation, existing tools and clearly defined limits on between-session contact can all be appropriate. A participant may also leave an answer blank.

Clear expectations and choice

1. How consistently are clients told what between-session support this program offers?
2. How consistently are clients told which between-session activities are optional?

Preparation and access

3. When a strategy is agreed, how consistently is there an opportunity to practise it during a calm session?
4. How consistently can clients access an agreed strategy in a format they can use?

Reflection and continuity

5. How consistently is time available during a session for experiences a client chooses to discuss?
6. When clients want help remembering what happened between sessions, how consistently is a suitable approach available?

Follow-up boundaries

7. How consistently are clients told whether this program checks incoming messages between sessions?
8. How consistently are clients told what follow-up, if any, to expect after a difficult moment?

Privacy and sharing

9. How consistently is a client's privacy considered when choosing a between-session support method?
10. For optional sharing, how consistently is the client's choice of who receives information followed?

Practical workload and feedback

11. How consistently does the agreed between-session process fit the time available to deliver it?
12. How consistently can clients say whether the current between-session approach is worth continuing?

What happens after the questions

The assessment is intended to take approximately 3–5 minutes, although that timing still needs to be tested. Each participant will then be invited to a 15–25 minute conversation about the assessment itself and the reality of their work.

The follow-up conversation will focus on:

• questions that were unclear or difficult to answer;
• missing answer choices;
• assumptions that do not fit the provider's work;
• current between-session processes and alternatives;
• professional workload and boundaries;
• privacy and technology constraints;
• parts of the result that were useful, misleading or irrelevant; and
• important aspects of between-session support that the assessment missed.

The founder's role is to listen, take manual notes and avoid defending Recall. Providers will not be asked to share client names, case files or identifying client details.

How the first round will be reviewed

After the first 3–5 conversations, outreach will stop while the findings are compared. We will look for:

• repeated confusion;
• repeated objections;
• missing real-world answer choices;
• strong existing alternatives;
• repeated unmet needs;
• contradictions between provider settings;
• signs that the assessment is leading people toward technology; and
• whether the result is useful without recommending Recall.

The next step may be a small revision, a major revision, more discovery, removal of an unsupported assumption, or a decision not to pursue a particular product direction. A larger provider round will not begin automatically.

What counts as useful evidence

Stronger signals include several unrelated providers independently describing the same unresolved problem, awkward workarounds or a practical gap before Recall is introduced.

Comments such as “interesting,” “cool idea” or “I would look at a demo” are courteous reactions. They are not proof of demand, adoption, clinical value or willingness to pay.

Evidence that challenges Recall is valuable. Examples include providers reporting that existing tools already work, that the issue is not a priority, that clients reject between-session activities, that privacy constraints make the concept impractical, or that a proposed feature would create unwanted responsibility.

How this informs the business model

The findings may help test assumptions in the Recall Lean Canvas, including:

• whether a meaningful problem exists;
• which provider and program segments experience it;
• what existing alternatives already work;
• which outcomes providers actually want from a between-session process;
• what adoption and workflow barriers matter;
• whether the current value proposition fits reality; and
• which product assumptions should be changed, deferred or abandoned.

Interviews alone cannot establish product effectiveness, market size, clinical outcomes or willingness to pay. Those questions require separate evidence.

Participation and contact

Participation is voluntary and concerns provider workflow and professional opinion. No identifiable client information should be provided. Comments may inform future product decisions and may be summarized without identifying the participant.

For questions about this validation work or interest in a future provider conversation, contact:

Mathew Gardner

Founder, Recall / The Upper Room Ventures Incorporated

hitrecallinstead@gmail.com

Status: Pretest planned. No results are reported on this page. This material does not claim clinical validation, professional endorsement or proven behavioural outcomes for Recall.