Inqueria: Interviews that Hold Up
AI that interviews your users like a trained researcher
Start new thread

Inqueria: Interviews that Hold Up - AI that interviews your users like a trained researcher

by•
Inqueria runs AI-moderated interviews that adapt to every answer, the way a trained researcher would. It redacts PII in-house before any model sees a transcript, then turns every conversation into themes with the exact quotes behind them. It checks each theme against every transcript and shows you the participants who disagree. Run 50 interviews overnight. Skip the month it takes to schedule five.

Add a comment

Replies

Best
Maker
📌
Hey Product Hunt 👋 I am Samrendra. I build Inqueria alone. Talking to users tells you why they buy, or why they quit. Most teams skip it anyway. Recruiting takes days, and running five interviews eats a week on top of that, then synthesizing them takes another week. Teams end up shipping on three conversations and a guess. Inqueria conducts the interview out loud and follows up the way a researcher does, instead of marching through a fixed script. It reads every conversation together and shows you what keeps coming up, with the source quote attached to each claim. Three decisions behind it: PII gets redacted in-house before any model sees a transcript. Every insight links back to a real quote. You can put it in front of a board and defend it. I built it for people who distrust AI research. Check its work. Read the source. Argue with it. Tell me where this breaks. If you run interviews today and this wouldn't replace that, tell me why.

you asked for where this breaks, so here's my honest skepticism: the interviewer itself is a variable. two runs of the same study could phrase follow-ups slightly differently and nudge people toward different answers, and that's invisible in the output since you only see themes and quotes, not the exact wording of what was asked. do you log the actual follow-up questions the AI generated per session, so a skeptical reader could check whether the moderator was leading the witness?

Maker

 Fair challenge, and yes. Every question the AI asks, follow-ups included, is saved word for word in the session transcript. Each quote in a theme links back to its session, so you can read the exact question asked right before it. Each session also records which version of the question plan (the plan AI generated based on researcher's objective) it ran against. These transcripts are available to the researcher (the study owner/creator).

The interviewer runs under a hard rule not to lead or suggest answers, but a rule isn't proof, which is why the wording is all kept.

Where you're right: The app provides a client viewing read-only report that the study owner/creator share and they see themes and quotes, not the transcripts, so they'd need the researcher's export to check the moderator. And nothing automatically flags a leading follow-up yet. Showing the question next to every quote is a good idea, and I'm adding it to the list.

 that's the right answer honestly, "adding it to the list" instead of pretending you already have an auto-flag for leading questions. the version-of-question-plan logging is the part that actually matters here, since it means a skeptic could diff two sessions from the same study and see if the plan drifted, not just trust the transcript in isolation. good luck with it.