The principles of usable design are public and largely solved. Most products cite them and still ship confusing screens, because clarity comes from iterating against real behaviour rather than reciting heuristics.
Usability is not a secret. Nielsen's heuristics are free. Accessibility standards are published. Design systems are given away by the companies that built them. Anyone can read all of it in a weekend, and a great many people have.
And yet most products still confuse the people using them. That gap is the whole story. Knowing the principles is a commodity; making a flow genuinely effortless is not, because it comes from watching real people fail at it and fixing what you saw.
For a company whose product is verification, this matters more than it would elsewhere. If our interface is confusing, we have already contradicted ourselves before anyone reads a word of what we claim. Confusion reads as untrustworthiness. A screen that needs explaining is leaking the very thing we are asking people to extend to us.
So we hold ourselves to one number rather than a design philosophy: the share of people who complete the core task on the first try, without help, hesitation or hand-holding. It is not a flattering metric. It goes down when we are wrong, which is the point of keeping it.
The practical rule that falls out of this is unglamorous. Clarity beats cleverness every time. If someone has to work out how to use a screen, the design has failed, however interesting it looked in isolation.
