← work

Original product research · Streaming discovery

Intent Layer

Recommendation systems know what you watched. What if they understood why?

An independent exploratory study of how mood, attention, social context, time, and story qualities shape what a viewer wants from a particular streaming occasion.

consumer researchintent modelingpersonalizationUX strategy

intent 01

“I want to feel understood”

intent 02

“I need something comforting”

intent 03

“I loved their dynamic”

occasion

“I only have 40 minutes”

viewing mode

“I want something in the background”

61

survey starts

52

eligible viewers

28

eligible completions

8–10

interviews planned

method · August–September 2026

Exploratory, directional evidence

I designed an anonymous survey around real viewing occasions—not general taste—to examine where recommendation context breaks down.

Question-level sample sizes range from 29–51 because valid partial responses were retained. Of respondents reporting age, 97% were 18–24, so these findings primarily reflect Gen Z behavior and should be treated as exploratory.

what the survey surfaced

Useful recommendations can still miss the moment.

Percentages use valid responses for each question; sample sizes are shown individually.

98%

n=40

Repeated recommendations

frequently saw the same titles repeatedly

86%

n=29

One-title overreaction

received unwanted recs after one title

83%

n=40

Browsing friction

sometimes browsed longer than they wanted

86%

n=43

Situational choice

said mood or viewing mode shaped selection

55%

n=29

Pre-watch preference

preferred clarifying intent before choosing

49%

n=39

Misunderstood intent

recalled a platform misreading why they watched

the numbers in practice

Three moments where similarity misunderstood the viewer.

01

Genre missed the reason

A viewer chose Sinners for its Southern Gothic qualities, then received horror recommendations despite not broadly enjoying horror.

02

A shared account distorted taste

After someone else watched a war movie on one respondent’s account, war titles began filling their recommendations.

03

Tone mattered within genre

A viewer wanted a particular kind of rom-com, while recommendations grouped titles with very different levels of romance, humor, and sincerity.

the product opportunity

Similarity asks what resembles the last title. Intent asks what fits what the viewer wants right now.

the intent layer

Capture what matters for this viewing occasion.

Intent supplements watch history and content similarity. It does not replace them; it gives those systems a human reason to start from.

pre-watch

Shape what fits now

Choose a few occasion and story signals while browsing.

post-watch

Learn what worked

Clarify the relationship, tone, setting, or dynamic that mattered.

chosen familybackground viewingdark comedysomething comfortingshort on timesomething new
01

Optional

Support indecision without interrupting viewers who already know what they want.

02

Low effort

Select only a few signals, then skip, remove, or refine without restarting.

03

Compositional

Combine mood, viewing mode, narrative qualities, time, and social context.

04

Explainable

Show which selected qualities each result matches.

living product deck

Research in motion

research complete · prototype in development

start small · build toward the layer

The path from signal to product

01

Research

Study when context breaks down.

02

Taxonomy

Turn motivations into usable language.

03

Pre-watch MVP

Prototype the moment of indecision.

04

Learning loop

Test lightweight post-watch feedback.

key takeaway

Watch history explains the past. Intent can shape what comes next.

The opportunity is not more recommendation noise. It is a lightweight signal that the platform cannot reliably infer on its own—and an experience that lets viewers correct the system without managing it.