Expense approval exceptions

01 / Define

The problem to explore

A hypothetical expense tool rejects claims with a generic policy message. Explore how submitters and approvers can clarify missing evidence and explain exceptions without repeatedly recreating a claim.

This is an original UXCharan practice scenario, not a commissioned client project or a validated research finding. Treat the problem as a hypothesis. Adapt it when your research points elsewhere.

Who to learn from

Employees submitting expenses and managers reviewing them. Recruit consenting adults with relevant experience where possible; document recruitment limits and avoid claiming your sample represents everyone.

02 / Discover

Research before choosing a solution

Questions to investigate

Which details cause back-and-forth?
How are exceptions explained?

Start with a small set of interviews or contextual walkthroughs that fits your access and consent arrangements. Compare two existing approaches to the same task. Separate direct observations, participant statements and your own assumptions. If primary research is not possible, clearly label desk research and list what remains untested.

Map the experience

Trace the task from its trigger through completion and follow-up. Identify where information, responsibility or confidence is missing. Choose one opportunity you can justify with evidence.

03 / Design

A manageable project scope

Submit a claim
request clarification
revise and decide

Choose one primary device and a realistic context of use. Explore at least two approaches before refining a flow. Build only the screens and states needed to demonstrate the selected task; a complete production system is outside this brief.

Include the difficult moments

Missing receipt
partial approval

Document loading, empty, error and success states where relevant. Consider keyboard order, text enlargement, contrast, meaningful labels and alternatives to colour-only status. Use synthetic data and a fictional brand; do not collect real medical records, credentials or payment information.

Project-specific artefact

A two-role review flow and audit history.

04 / Test & improve

What would make the design work?

Can each role understand what changed and why a decision was made?

Turn this question into realistic prototype tasks. Record whether participants complete each task, where they hesitate, what they misunderstand and how much help they need. Choose success criteria before testing; report observed counts with sample size, rather than claiming statistically proven improvements.

Prioritise findings by impact on the task. Revise the flow and retest the most consequential change where possible. If you cannot retest, explain that limitation.

05 / Tell the story

Your submission checklist

Problem framing, intended users, scope and your role.
Research approach, anonymised evidence and assumptions that changed.
Journey or flow, alternatives explored and reasons for your decisions.
A two-role review flow and audit history.
Viewable Figma prototype or a shareable document, including key edge cases.
Usability findings, before-and-after revisions and remaining limitations.
A concise portfolio narrative that labels this as a self-initiated concept.

Show what you learned and changed. Do not invent testimonials, interview quotes, launch metrics, employment relationships or business outcomes. Disclose material AI assistance and verify generated content.

Share CS-32 for feedback →

Useful methods for this project

These sources inform the learning process; they do not validate the fictional scenario or endorse UXCharan. Explore more tools in the resource library.