The Allē Case Shows Two Good Redesigns. It Needs to Show One System.

Current-state summary

Before the full audit, where things stand relative to prior findings.

Resolved. The teaser page metadata is now mandate- and metric-forward. Title names dual-surface loyalty redesign, 30M members, 40K practices. Meta description names the role, both surfaces, all three outcome stats. Done.

Persists. The teaser hero still has no product visual above the fold. Still places the first CTA after the Track A section rather than in the hero. Both flagged previously. Prior recommendations stand.

Persists. The full case hero eyebrow says 2020. The problem section says Brilliant Distinctions relaunched as Allē in 2021. The teaser fixed this by using 2021. The full case did not. Small fix, factual hiccup in the first ten seconds of reading.

New. The full case returns complete HTML before the localStorage gate fires. Flagged in the site architecture audit as a P1 across all five gated cases. Still true. Every finding below applies to content that is technically public to anyone who views source.

Now the audit.

The coherence gap

The Allē case exists in your portfolio for a specific buyer with a specific worry. A design director at Headway evaluating you for a role that spans therapist and patient surfaces. A hiring committee at Ramp looking for someone who can work across merchant-facing and business-facing products. A VP Design at Gusto who needs a leader governing employer and employee experiences simultaneously. The fear in that room is precise: they will hire someone who ships a beautiful consumer experience that breaks provider workflows. Someone who produces two roadmaps that quietly diverge until the platform's coherence fractures.

Allē should be the case that makes that fear irrational. Right now it does not do that work.

The hero states the premise: "I redesigned both surfaces — and defined the strategy connecting them." Strong. The individual decision narratives in both tracks hold up. The teaser closing actually lands the coherence argument explicitly: "the same loyalty logic runs both surfaces from one information model." But the full case, the one that should deepen that argument, thins it out. Hero makes the claim. Case splits into Track A and Track B. Tracks never reconnect.

A buyer at a two-sided platform company will read this and see two well-executed redesign narratives that share a hero section. They will not see the connective tissue proving consumer decisions and provider decisions were interdependent. The format is strong. The decisions are well-framed. The gap is structural: the connecting strategy is asserted but never demonstrated.

Six diagnostic checkpoints follow.

1. Is the single strategic premise established before the case splits?

Partially. The hero sentence does the work. The problem section adds useful framing about Brilliant Distinctions being a pharmaceutical points program that needed to become something delivering financial, functional, and emotional value simultaneously. Good setup.

Then the approach section immediately splits into "two tracks and six design decisions" without naming what the connecting strategy actually is. You state that you defined the strategy. You never say what it is.

Add one paragraph between the problem section and the track split. Name the strategic premise in operational terms. Directional language:

Does not need to be long. Needs to exist. Without it, the track split reads as organizational convenience rather than strategic architecture.

2. Does the A·01–B·03 format make tradeoff rationale explicit?

The format is a strength. Preserve it. Each decision entry moves from a named problem state to a named solution state with rationale. The "from X to Y" structure scans well.

The gap: "why this over alternatives." Each entry explains what the new design does and why the old state was insufficient. None name what was considered and rejected. Not every decision needs this layer equally. Two do.

A·02 (catalog to care plan). You moved from treatment catalog to saved care plan anchored on the patient's stated intent. A buyer evaluating your judgment wants to know: why a saved plan rather than a recommendation engine? Why anchor on patient intent rather than provider-suggested treatments? The answer almost certainly connects to a cross-surface constraint. A recommendation engine would have required provider-side treatment data and preference signals that the provider backoffice was not yet structured to supply. If that is true, say it. That single sentence proves the dual-surface architecture shaped individual design decisions. The coherence argument in miniature.

B·01 (alphabetical list to urgency sorting). Making expiring-points sorting the default is a strong choice. What lost? Sorting by recency of visit? By revenue value? The rejected alternative and the reason it lost tells the buyer how you prioritize retention logic over revenue logic. That is a design philosophy signal that matters in the rooms where Allē is a supporting case.

One sentence each, embedded in the decision narrative. Not a template applied uniformly across all six entries.

3. Does leadership context read as embedded or as a credits line?

Credits line. The hero brief lists Product Design Director, team of 3 product designers plus UX research and brand. That is the last time leadership appears. The decision sections describe design choices in first person but never narrate how a 3-designer team split dual-surface work, how you navigated the Allergan/AbbVie stakeholder environment, or what tradeoffs required escalation.

For the buyer rooms where Allē is a supporting case, this matters more than the design work itself. Allē answers whether Juno can build and lead a team through a complex, multi-surface, stakeholder-heavy engagement. Right now the case only answers whether Juno can do the design work.

You do not need a dedicated leadership section. You need two moments inside the decision narratives where team and organizational context become visible. Candidates:

• A·02 (catalog to care plan). This decision likely required alignment between clinical, marketing, and product stakeholders at Allergan. Name who needed to agree and what the sticking point was.
• B·00 (provider backoffice introduction). You governed the principle "what the practice needs to act on today." How did you arrive at that principle with a 3-person team covering two surfaces? Did you split the team consumer/provider, or rotate? That operational detail is leadership evidence.

A third candidate, B·03, is addressed below in finding 6 because the leadership context and the regulatory constraint are the same sentence.

4. Are consumer and provider urgency framed as expressions of the same loyalty logic?

This is the core coherence test. The case does not pass it.

Consumer decisions (A·01 through A·03) read as a consumer engagement redesign. Provider decisions (B·00 through B·03) read as a provider workflow redesign. Both well-framed individually. The case never makes visible the moments where a consumer design decision created or depended on a provider-side mechanism.

The clearest missed connection: A·01 introduces expiry alerts on the consumer side. B·01 introduces expiry-based urgency sorting on the provider side. Same data event. A member's points approaching expiration, surfaced to two different actors for two different purposes. The consumer sees urgency to redeem. The provider sees urgency to retain. That is the loyalty logic made operational. The case presents them in separate tracks without naming the connection.

Similarly: A·03 introduces post-visit evidence (before/after photos, care chat). B·02 surfaces treatment history and visit context at checkout. The consumer builds a record. The provider reads that record. Same information model, two views.

Add cross-references between paired consumer/provider decisions. One sentence at the end of A·01: "On the provider side, the same expiry signal drives B·01's urgency sort — the practice sees the retention risk before the member walks." And a reciprocal sentence in B·01. Do this for every consumer-provider pair that shares an underlying data event.

The A/B naming convention itself encodes separation: A is consumer, B is provider, and the reader processes them as parallel tracks by default. The cross-references do double duty. They add information, and they actively counteract the structural implication of the numbering system. If A·01 and B·01 are far enough apart on the page that the reader cannot see both simultaneously, the cross-reference should link to the paired section. Otherwise it claims coherence from a location where coherence cannot be verified.

5. Are outcomes attributed to specific design decisions?

Uneven. Better than most portfolio cases I review, but the unevenness creates a specific problem.

47% reactivation. Well-attributed. The reactivation section ties it to expiry warning notifications, and 68% of reactivating members cited that notification as the return trigger. Strong.

$42 CAC. Well-attributed. A·02 connects in-app planning to 2.4× front-desk enrollment conversion, which drove CAC from $92 to $42. Clear causal chain.

3.2× redemption. Floats. Appears in the hero as an overall outcome but is not tied to any specific decision section. Which decision tripled redemption? The milestone architecture in A·01? The care plan in A·02? The provider checkout context in B·02?

Anchor 3.2× redemption to the decision or decisions that drove it. If it was a system-level outcome driven by the interaction of consumer and provider changes, say that explicitly. That framing strengthens the coherence argument: "Redemption tripled not because of one surface change but because consumer progress visibility (A·01) and provider checkout context (B·02) reinforced each other." If you can make that claim honestly, it is the single strongest proof point for the dual-surface thesis. A metric that can only be explained by the interaction of both surfaces is a metric that proves the surfaces were designed as one system.

6. Is the healthcare-adjacent regulatory environment framed as a design constraint?

No. The domain context is present throughout: Allergan Aesthetics, AbbVie, BOTOX, Juvéderm, patients, providers, injectors, clinically useful before/after comparison. But the case never names a regulatory or compliance constraint that shaped a design decision. No mention of HIPAA, patient consent for photo capture, claims language review, prescribing-information requirements.

Buyers in regulated industries (health tech, fintech, insurance) want to see that you have operated under real constraints, not just designed in a medical-adjacent aesthetic. And the silence makes the case feel lighter than it should. A loyalty program for injectable aesthetic treatments, handling patient treatment history and before/after photos, almost certainly involved compliance review at multiple points. Anyone who has worked in a regulated environment will notice the absence.

Name the constraint where it shaped the decision. Two candidates:

• A·03 (post-visit evidence with before/after photos). Patient consent for photo capture, clinical-grade comparison standards, data handling for treatment imagery. One sentence naming what the constraint was and how it shaped the design.
• B·03 (provider voice campaigns). This is where finding 3's leadership recommendation and finding 6's regulatory recommendation converge. Same edit. A practice-named campaign builder with patient-data filters, sending communications about aesthetic treatments, almost certainly required legal review of claims language. Name the constraint and name how you navigated it: "Claims language for practice-originated patient communications required legal review; I worked with [stakeholder] to preserve the campaign builder's flexibility while meeting compliance requirements." Leadership context and regulatory constraint in one sentence. Do not treat these as two separate edits to the same paragraph.

Priority stack

Change one thing. Add the cross-references between paired consumer/provider decisions (finding 4), implemented as navigable anchors. Fastest path to coherence.

Change two things. Add the strategic-premise paragraph before the track split (finding 1). Together with the cross-references, this gives the case a coherence spine.

Change three things. Anchor 3.2× redemption to specific decisions (finding 5), ideally to a cross-surface interaction that reinforces findings 1 and 4.

Leadership embedding (finding 3) and regulatory constraint framing (finding 6) matter for specific buyer rooms but are secondary to the coherence argument that makes this case worth showing to two-sided platform companies at all. The B·03 consolidation handles both in one pass. Decision-rationale depth (finding 2) is a craft improvement that compounds over time. Prioritize A·02's tradeoff sentence first because it doubles as coherence evidence.

Fix the date. 2020 in the hero, 2021 in the problem section. The teaser already chose 2021.