Human Experience Reform

Independent public-interest evaluations of how systems respect dignity and support agency.

HXR Documentation

HXR: Start Here

How HXR uses Evaluations, supported by Incident Cases and other evidence, to understand difficult, successful, and mixed experiences—and make better practices visible for people and organizations.

Human-made systems shape what people can understand, choose, accomplish, and change. Some make ordinary goals unnecessarily difficult. Others recognize people's dignity, make their choices consequential, and help them use their time and attention well.

HXR studies both. It publishes Evaluations: ongoing, evidence-based analyses of a product, service, organization, workflow, or practice. Each Evaluation can draw on Incident Cases—records of bounded experiences—and other evidence to explain what works well, what causes difficulty, what remains uncertain, and what can be learned or improved.

Think about the difference between repeating your story at every handoff and having it reach the person who can help. Or between receiving a list of options that lead nowhere and making a choice that affects what happens next. HXR examines those differences, including the practices that make good experiences possible.

Better experiences can benefit organizations too. Clear information and effective handoffs can help people achieve their objectives while reducing avoidable repeat contacts and staff rework. HXR distinguishes demonstrated benefits from plausible benefits that still need evidence.

What HXR Is Building

HXR combines observation, explanation, and evaluation to understand how systems affect people's objectives, time, understanding, access, safety, dignified treatment, and practical agency.

Evaluations are the main public analytical records. Incident Cases preserve what happened in bounded occurrences and may support, challenge, narrow, or qualify one or more Evaluations. Other evidence can contribute too. One experience remains one experience even when it informs several analyses; more reports do not automatically establish prevalence or make a conclusion true.

The limited live pilot already publishes Evaluations and Incident Cases. These records make the developing method inspectable against real evidence. They can preserve successful practices, examine failures and mixed performance, and track individual outcomes, verified improvements, and later regressions within the scope the evidence supports.

Formal scoring-method development has begun, but HXR does not yet claim an operational or validated universal score. Its deeper constitutional and methodological rules continue to be developed in public so they can be challenged before future scores, influence, funding, or reputation make them harder to change.

The Human End

Human dignity is inherent. HXR and the systems it examines do not create it or take it away. They can recognize or disregard it through how people are treated.

The goal is dignified treatment, practical agency, and protected human capacity: people's time, attention, and ability to pursue their goals. Agency means that what a person does has a meaningful possibility of affecting what happens next. It does not guarantee the person's preferred outcome.

Recognizing good practice, documenting harm, sharing useful knowledge, and tracking improvement are ways to pursue those ends. Reform matters when change is needed; a practice that already serves people well also deserves examination, preservation, and appropriate credit. Benefits to an organization can strengthen the case for a good practice, but people's dignity does not depend on a financial return.

Three Ways to Test HXR

  • Explore an Evaluation. Examine its findings, supporting Incident Cases and other evidence, counterexamples, limits, organization responses, and updates. Look for what works as well as what needs improvement.
  • Share an experience. A successful, difficult, or mixed experience may reveal a useful practice, a limitation, a correction, or a different outcome. Positive experiences enter through the same contribution path and evidence standards as concerns. Participation remains subject to the pilot's current capacity and publication safeguards. Read the participation guide for more detail.
  • Examine the method. Challenge the assumptions, evidence handling, attribution, or conclusions. Bring relevant experience or expertise, or follow the project as it develops.

Help us test whether these ideas deserve to grow.

Universal Scope

HXR applies wherever human-made systems shape what people can understand, choose, do, correct, influence, or recover from. Its scope includes healthcare, insurance, schools, workplaces, products, transportation, public services, laws, courts, physical spaces, digital platforms, and automated systems.

Universal scope is an obligation to remain open, not a claim of complete knowledge.

Recognition Is Not Automatic Adjudication

An experience can matter enough to examine without automatically proving every claim about cause, intent, wrongdoing, or responsibility. HXR separates what happened from explanations for why it happened and from judgments about whether the burden was justified.

If a named organization says the problem is controlled elsewhere, HXR should treat that as a claim to investigate. Responsibility can be corrected or divided as evidence develops. The affected person should not have to map the entire institutional system before their experience can matter.

Silence is ambiguous evidence. Low complaint volume proves neither satisfaction nor resignation by itself.

How the Analysis Works

  1. Observation: What objective was the person pursuing? What happened? What supportable burdens, benefits, or outcomes occurred?
  2. Explanation: Which practices, mechanisms, constraints, incentives, policies, or relationships helped or hindered the objective? What does the evidence establish, and what remains uncertain?
  3. Evaluation: How did the experience recognize dignity and enable practical agency? What worked well, for whom, and under which conditions? Were burdens necessary, proportionate, fairly distributed, clearly explained, and open to meaningful challenge or remedy? What should be preserved, shared, or improved?

Time is one powerful metric, but it is not the whole project. HXR also examines practical agency, dignified treatment, understanding, access, safety, opportunity, recovery, and other human consequences where the evidence supports them.

Why These Costs Stay Hidden

An organization may reduce its own costs by cutting staff, training, coordination, or support. The work does not disappear. Customers, patients, workers, families, or the public may inherit it.

But not every failure saves the institution money. Some broken workflows waste resources on both sides through repeat contacts, transfers, rework, escalation, responsibility disputes, and unresolved outcomes. HXR examines both burden transfer and shared inefficiency without assuming motive that the evidence does not establish.

HXR also examines practices that prevent those costs from arising. An Evaluation can show how a clear choice, a reliable handoff, or a well-designed recovery path helps the person and how it affects the organization providing it. Those effects must be supported separately: an observed human benefit is not automatic proof of lower cost, greater trust, or stronger retention.

When the Normal Process Reaches a Dead End

Official services may possess authority HXR does not. Use the channel capable of producing an immediate medical, legal, safety, or other time-sensitive outcome first. HXR does not replace those services or guarantee a preferred result. Its limited pilot can preserve experiences and bring evidence into Evaluations so useful findings, organization responses, and supported improvements can be examined over time.

What HXR Adds When the Normal Process Reaches a Dead End explains this application in more detail. The 96-Hour Appointment Loop: DMHC and HXR Compared gives a concrete healthcare example.

Go Deeper