A step-by-step way to work
Get a first-pass layout
Paste your observations and ask AI to propose affinity groups with candidate theme labels — a starting layout, not a verdict.
Hunt the outliers
Ask what doesn't fit any cluster. Outliers are often where the interesting insight hides.
Re-cluster deliberately
Ask it to regroup the same notes a completely different way to break your own framing and reveal alternative structures.
Pull the layout into your own space
Move the clusters into your tool and physically rearrange them — the manual sense-making is the part that produces insight.
Name themes yourself
AI's labels are generic ('Usability issues'); the sharp, insight-bearing label is yours to write.
Real prompts, and what good output looks like
Cluster these 15 research observations into affinity groups, label each, and separately list anything that doesn't fit a group [observations pasted].
Group 1 – Setup friction (5 notes) Group 2 – Trust/credibility concerns (4) Group 3 – Mobile gaps (3)
Outliers: 'used it differently than intended — to share with their accountant' (1); 'asked if data could be deleted on request' (1).
The first outlier hints at an unanticipated use case; worth exploring before you dismiss it.
Now regroup the same 15 observations by the user's emotional state instead of by feature area.
Anxious / uncertain (6): mostly setup and trust notes — these cluster around the first-time experience.
Confident / in-flow (4): power-user behaviours.
Frustrated (5): spread across features — suggesting frustration isn't feature-specific but moment-specific.
This cut suggests intervening by moment (first-run) may beat fixing features one by one.
A prompt you can reuse
Fill in the highlighted parts and paste it into your AI tool of choice. Edit the output — it's a starting point, not a finished answer.
Help me affinity-map research observations. Give me a starting layout to think with — I'll do the final sense-making.
Observations:
[paste your observations, one per line]
Please:
1. Propose affinity groups with a candidate label for each and the count per group.
2. Separately, list any observations that don't fit a group (outliers) and why they're interesting.
3. Then re-cluster the SAME observations a different way (e.g. by emotional state, by journey stage) and tell me what that alternative cut reveals.
What AI gets wrong here
Skipping the thinking
Accepting AI's finished clusters skips the synthesis that actually generates insight.
Burying outliers
Tidy clusters can absorb or hide the odd note that's the real discovery.
Generic theme labels
AI labels themes blandly ('Usability'), which carry no insight.
AI can group sticky notes faster than you can, and forcing it to re-cluster is a genuine way to escape your own framing. But affinity mapping earns its keep through the act of clustering — the moment a pattern becomes felt. Outsource the first draft if you like; do the sense-making, the outlier-chasing, and the naming yourself.