Case Study · Systems & Workflow Analysis
Finding the pattern behind an inconsistent customer experience
When a problem does not happen every time, a general description is rarely enough.
During independent testing for Awardly, May Fundora identified the condition associated with an inconsistent Recompete Radar experience, documented how to reproduce it, and returned after Awardly deployed a fix to test the original failure condition again.
Project overview
Organization: Awardly
Work: Independent product & workflow testing
Timeframe: July–August 2026
Awardly is an online platform that May joined as a new user. After encountering friction during signup and mobile use, she documented the issues and offered to help with end-to-end testing.
Awardly founder, Melinda Schnabel, investigated the initial findings, implemented fixes, and invited May to complete another testing pass. That exchange evolved into several rounds of independent testing that May performed personally, not as a paid engagement through GLBS.
How the work began
From user feedback to structured investigation
The first issues involved mobile display, signup-form behavior, and information entered during signup not being retained as expected.
Those findings established the working relationship, but the more significant challenge emerged during later testing of Recompete Radar.
An authenticated Gold member could sometimes encounter a guest or signup experience instead of the expected member access. Normal navigation within the product could work correctly while another entry path produced a different result.
Because the problem was inconsistent, confirming that it existed was only the first step. The useful question was what changed when it appeared.
Finding the pattern
May compared the working and unsuccessful experiences across different ways of entering and reopening Recompete Radar.
The difference was associated with a tracking parameter in the incoming link. Testing with an ordinary link did not produce the same result, while the parameterized link provided a repeatable path to the issue.
May documented the conditions and supplied targeted evidence to Awardly. Awardly then used that information in its own investigation and developed a fix.
Observe
Document the difference between what the user expected and what occurred.
Compare
Test the conditions surrounding the working and unsuccessful experiences.
Isolate
Identify the variable associated with the inconsistent result.
Document
Provide a clear reproduction path and supporting evidence.
From finding to resolution
May
Isolated the triggering condition and documented the reproduction path.
Awardly
Investigated the issue and developed the fix.
Validation
May independently retested the affected conditions.
Returning to the original failure condition
Testing the fix where the problem had occurred
After Awardly deployed its fix, May returned to the same parameterized entry path that had previously produced the guest and signup experience.
She retested the link across fresh and reopened browser sessions and compared it with the clean entry path. The incorrect experience did not return.
The Gold account retained its expected access, contracts opened normally, and the parameterized link continued to work after being refreshed and reopened.
The entry path that had previously failed passed focused regression testing after Awardly deployed its fix.
Continued testing
Reporting what the evidence supported
Additional testing identified a separate inconsistency involving Scope of Work information on some Recompete Radar cards. The information could be absent from a card while remaining available in its corresponding detail view.
When the original examples aged out of the current dataset, May tested current records and supplied Awardly with updated examples across multiple organizations.
Awardly confirmed that the examples were under engineering review. No final resolution was provided, so this finding is documented only as an additional inconsistency supplied for investigation.
Outcomes
A reproducible condition
Testing narrowed the inconsistent customer experience to a specific entry condition that could be reproduced and investigated.
Evidence Awardly could act on
Awardly received the affected path, the conditions surrounding it, and targeted evidence to support its investigation.
Validation against the original failure
After Awardly deployed its fix, May independently returned to the previously affected path and confirmed that it worked correctly under the retested conditions.
What this demonstrates about GLBS
Clearer evidence creates a better path forward
Small businesses often know when something is not working correctly. The harder part is explaining a problem that appears inconsistently, changes between users, or cannot be reproduced by the person responsible for resolving it.
This experience demonstrates professional capabilities May brings to her work through Great Lakes Business Support:
Looking at problems within the larger customer journey
Comparing systems, workflows, and entry conditions
Finding patterns across inconsistent results
Separating confirmed facts from assumptions
Turning observations into documented, actionable findings
Returning after a change to verify the affected process
Reporting unresolved findings without overstating their status
GLBS applies this structured approach to problems involving systems, workflows, tools, and customer experiences. The goal is to reduce ambiguity, clarify what is actually happening, and create a more informed path forward.
Something in your business isn’t working the way it should?
When the problem involves your workflows, tools, handoffs, or documentation, the source of the friction may not be obvious. The Systems Review provides an in-depth, structured assessment of how work actually moves through your business, with documented findings and prioritized improvement areas.