From Reflection to Insight
Designing a narrative interface for AI-derived impact data across 229 youth music mentoring sessions
🚀 Live app:
Noise Solution Impact Dashboard
💻 Source code:
GitHub repository
The challenge wasn’t building a dashboard. It was deciding what to report honestly when the data doesn’t tell a clean story — and making that honesty useful.
1. Context, problem, and goal
Context
Noise Solution is a UK-based charity that uses digital music mentoring to support young people facing significant barriers — including mental health challenges, exclusion from education, and social isolation. Mentors work one-to-one with participants, using music creation as the medium for building psychological wellbeing. After each session, mentors write free-text reflections: observations, participant responses, and qualitative notes.
Problem
Noise Solution collects qualitative reflection data from young people across every session. This project translates that data into decision-ready insight — connecting session-level observations to programme-level patterns in a form accessible to commissioners and funders. AI-derived scores provided quantitative structure, but without clear integration with participant voice, they lacked the contextual grounding needed for credible reporting.
Goal
Design an interface that integrates AI-derived quantitative scores with qualitative participant evidence, enabling stakeholders to identify strengths, understand gaps, and interpret findings with appropriate caution — without requiring familiarity with the underlying methodology.
This project was completed as a pro bono contribution through the Data ChangeMakers volunteer programme, treated as a consulting engagement rather than a portfolio exercise.
2. Approach: a structured scoring pipeline
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provided the analytical scaffold. SDT is a well-validated framework in which psychological wellbeing depends on the satisfaction of three Basic Psychological Needs (BPN):
- Competence — feeling capable and effective
- Autonomy — experiencing choice and creative agency
- Relatedness — feeling connected to others
For each of 229 sessions across 35 participants, Claude (Anthropic) reviewed the mentor’s free-text notes and assigned BPN scores on a 1–9 scale, along with representative quotes and sentiment classification (positive / challenge).
This pipeline has important limitations disclosed throughout the dashboard:
- Scores reflect AI interpretation of qualitative notes, not self-report from participants
- The scoring stage introduces subjectivity that cannot be fully eliminated
- Results should be read as structured summaries, not clinical measurements
The goal was not to eliminate uncertainty, but to make patterns accessible for programme reflection while being transparent about what the data can and cannot support.
3. What the analysis finds
Across 229 sessions, three patterns emerged:
Competence is the programme’s strongest signal.
Average Competence score: 6.2 / 9. Participants consistently report feeling capable and effective — this is the clearest outcome the data supports.
A consistent gap in Relatedness.
Autonomy averaged 5.6 / 9; Relatedness averaged 5.4 / 9. The gap between capability and connection scores is the most structurally interesting finding — the programme builds skill and confidence more reliably than peer connection, which is consistent with a one-to-one mentoring model and may represent a design opportunity.
Session satisfaction is high, but alignment with BPN scores is partial.
Average session rating: 8.7 / 10. Higher ratings do not consistently predict higher BPN scores, suggesting participant satisfaction and psychological need satisfaction are related but distinct.
Trajectories over time are flat.
Across sessions 1–9 (where N ≥ 10), average BPN scores do not show a consistent upward trend. This is an honest finding — the data does not support claims of improvement over time at the aggregate level.
4. Dashboard structure: four questions
The analysis is structured around four questions rather than four feature tabs — each one driving a deliberate design and content decision.
What is happening?
Establishes the overall pattern using BPN scores, session ratings, and a hero quote drawn directly from session notes. The goal is immediate clarity: are sessions working, and where is the gap? A rating/BPN alignment chart sits subordinate to the KPI cards — confirmatory, not the lead story.
Where is the gap?
Compares support across the three psychological needs, highlighting the consistent Relatedness gap. A horizontal bar chart with a midpoint reference line (5 — midpoint) enables direct comparison without requiring familiarity with the 1–9 scale.
What do participants actually say?
Surfaces qualitative evidence to validate and contextualise the quantitative findings. Quotes are organised by BPN domain and sentiment; the sentiment label is removed from the cards so the participant’s voice speaks without being pre-classified for the reader.
Does it change over time?
Examines BPN trajectories across sessions to assess whether support improves or remains variable. Individual lines at alpha 0.11 avoid overplotting; the average overlay is limited to sessions 1–9 where N ≥ 10. The finding is what the data shows — not what a programme narrative might prefer.
5. Key design decisions
Prioritised editorial structure over exploratory interaction
A fixed narrative structure replaces open filters. This reduces cognitive load for non-technical users — commissioners and programme staff — and ensures findings are interpreted in context rather than explored in isolation.
Integrated quantitative and qualitative evidence throughout
Every section pairs BPN scores with participant quotes. This grounds the metrics in lived experience and builds credibility with audiences who are rightly skeptical of AI-derived numbers alone.
Built a validation layer: ratings vs. BPN
The rating/BPN alignment chart was included to surface the relationship — and its limits — between participant satisfaction and psychological need satisfaction. This reveals that a high average rating cannot stand as a proxy for wellbeing, supporting appropriate caution throughout.
Constrained interaction to what directly supports interpretation
Controls are limited to the Positive / Challenges toggle in In Their Words and the session threshold in Over Time. No segment filters, no demographic drilldowns. The simplicity is intentional — not a constraint.
Reported flat trajectories as flat
The Over Time analysis does not smooth or aggregate in a way that implies improvement. Honest findings are more useful for programme reflection than reassuring ones.
6. Out of scope — by design
The following were intentionally excluded:
- Individual participant drilldowns
- Demographic segmentation or filtering
- Advanced statistical modelling or significance testing
- Causal claims about programme impact
These elements were intentionally excluded to preserve clarity and maintain focus on decision-making rather than exploration. An interface built for commissioners needs to communicate — not demonstrate analytical range.
7. Technical lessons from the build
geom_line_interactive tooltips fire per line, not per point
geom_line_interactive() from ggiraph fires tooltip events for the entire line on hover. The fix: overlay an invisible geom_point_interactive() layer to capture point-level interactions.
geom_point_interactive(
aes(tooltip = tooltip_text, data_id = participant_id),
size = 3, alpha = 0
)CSS tabs and Shiny lazy evaluation
shiny.semantic’s CSS-based tab switching does not notify Shiny when tabs become visible. outputOptions(output, "output_name", suspendWhenHidden = FALSE) on all outputs is now a standard first step in any shiny.semantic project.
8. Outcome and reflection
Outcome
The final design provides a clear, integrated view of programme performance. The integration of AI-derived metrics with participant voice delivers both analytical structure and contextual grounding — enabling stakeholders to identify strengths (Competence), understand gaps (Relatedness), and interpret findings with appropriate caution, without requiring familiarity with SDT or the scoring pipeline. The result is a focused, narrative-driven interface that enables fast, confident interpretation of complex, AI-derived data.
Reflection
The central trade-off was between analytical honesty and accessibility. Flat trajectories and partial rating/BPN alignment are not the findings a programme narrative would choose — but they are more useful than reassuring simplifications. The final approach demonstrates that complex, AI-derived insights can be communicated effectively through a constrained, narrative-driven interface — provided the analyst is willing to let the data speak rather than manage its reception.
Appendix: Methodology & Build Notes
Data
- 229 sessions, 35 participants
- Session range: 1–24, median 5, mean 6.5
- BPN averages: Competence 6.16, Autonomy 5.64, Relatedness 5.37
- Session rating: 8.7 / 10 average (153 / 229 sessions with ratings)
- Relatedness challenge quotes sparse (37 / 229 sessions)
Technical Stack
- Language: R (4.3+)
- Framework: Shiny (modular architecture)
- UI: shiny.semantic (Appsilon)
- Visualization: ggplot2, ggiraph
- Tables: reactable
- Deployment: shinyapps.io
Purpose, Scope, and Disclaimer
This project was completed as a pro bono volunteer contribution through the Data ChangeMakers volunteer programme. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by Noise Solution in an official capacity.
All session data was provided by Noise Solution for the purpose of this analysis. No personally identifiable information is included in this repository or the live application.
This work does not constitute clinical, diagnostic, or therapeutic guidance.
The most useful thing an analyst can do with small, qualitative datasets is not to find a way to claim significance — it is to surface patterns honestly and make them accessible to the people closest to the work.
In this case, that means reporting that Competence scores are strong, that Relatedness lags, and that trajectories over time are flat. Those findings may not tell the story a programme narrative would choose — but they give Noise Solution something more useful: a clear, structured starting point for reflection.
Citation
@online{ponce2026,
author = {Ponce, Steven},
title = {From {Reflection} to {Insight}},
date = {2026-04-25},
url = {https://stevenponce.netlify.app/projects/standalone_visualizations/sa_2026-04-25.html},
langid = {en}
}