Between Expectation and Result

A Broken Symmetry

Fecit’s task detail screen is organized in sections. The “Intention” and “Retrospect” sections bookend the task — one before you start, one after you’re done.

Intention had three fields:

• Target — where you are starting from
• Expectation — what result you’re hoping for
• Obstacle — what’s in the way

Retrospect had only two:

• Satisfaction — how satisfied you are with how it went
• Retrospect — your general reflection

Something felt off. There was no pair for Expectation. You could write down what result you expected, but there was nowhere to record what actually happened as a factual counterpart. Satisfaction is an emotional response, and Retrospect is a broader reflection — neither is the right place to capture the fact itself.

Adding Result

So I added a new field, Result, at the top of the retrospect section. The order fell into place naturally:

1. Result — What actually happened (the facts)
2. Satisfaction — How you feel about it (the reaction)
3. Retrospect — What you learned from it (the reflection)

Facts → reaction → reflection. Each field asks its own question, inviting the user to look at the experience through a different lens.

Pairing Creates Comparison

When Expectation and Result sit side by side, comparison happens on its own.

Expected: I expected to get at least three questions after the presentation. Result: Hardly any came during the talk, but one person stopped by during the break.

Once those two lines are on the page, Retrospect almost writes itself. “Why fewer than expected? Was it the format, or the specific audience?” The questions follow the gap.

Comparison breeds learning. Whether your expectation was spot-on or way off, observing the delta is what lets you calibrate next time. Writing only the expectation or only the result doesn’t close this loop.

The Power of Structured Writing Space

One of Fecit’s differentiators is how much structured writing space each task gets. Typical task apps — Todoist, Things — give you a title, a description, maybe comments. Fecit adds Target, Expectation, Obstacle, Preparation, Retrospect, and now Result.

People sometimes ask “why so many fields?” The answer is simple: a field is a question. When you land on an empty input, the field’s name (Target, Expectation, …) puts a specific prompt in your head, and filling it in organizes your thinking.

A labeled field is better than a blank page. A blank page is free but directionless. A structured field gently asks, “look at it from this angle.” Expectation asks “what are you hoping for?” Result asks “what actually came of it?”

Of course, you don’t have to fill them all. Fecit’s “Minimal to Maximal” principle applies here too. The default is just a simple todo; the structure unfolds when you need it. A short walk doesn’t need a Target or a Result. A big presentation or a project milestone, filled in carefully, becomes a real asset when you revisit it later.

When the Gap Becomes Visible

Designing features, I often get that “something’s missing but I can’t put my finger on it” feeling. Spotting a missing pair — like Result — is what makes the vagueness snap into a concrete shape.

A paired structure asks its own design questions.

• If there’s Expectation, “where’s Result?”
• If there’s Target, “where’s the record of how far toward the Target we got?”

I don’t have a clean answer to the second one yet. Separate field? Merge into Result? Adding Result this round surfaced the next question, which feels about right.

Closing

Result is just one field, but the reason for adding it wasn’t “one more input slot.” It was about completing the comparison loop with Expectation, and cleaning up the retrospect flow into “facts → feeling → reflection.”

The weight of a single field comes from the question it asks and the other field it pairs with. Here’s hoping retrospection becomes a slightly more productive conversation. That’s enough for today.