Friction to Feedback: Designing a B2B2C Reputation Engine

The Business Problem & B2B2C Ecosystem

Patients receive digital health services through their insurance policy — but the partnership behind the scenes spans three corporate entities, each with distinct legal and operational responsibilities.

• Kooperativa is the sponsor: an insurance provider in the Vienna Insurance Group whose clients and employees receive digital health services (like eDoctor and ProDoctor) as a policy benefit.
• Diagnose.me is the platform: it runs the technology, coordinates international specialists, and delivers the medical service end-to-end.
• Global Assistance Slovakia (GAS) is the integrator: it contracts Diagnose.me to operate the platform on Kooperativa’s behalf and funds the service delivery.

Our business partner GAS came to my PM at Diagnose.me with a specific ask: design an email that links directly to their existing external questionnaire. My mandate: maximize the response rate. The brief was small. The friction underneath it was huge.

What I owned: the end-to-end UX as the solo designer — the audit of the live form, the 1-click email mechanic, the dual-path routing logic, all the copy, and the Figma prototype. My PM set the brief and made the ship decision.

The “Roadside Assistance” Friction Audit

GAS’s existing questionnaire was built years earlier for car-breakdown service operators. The form already split users into a positive and a negative path based on their NPS score — but executed both poorly, and used vocabulary that didn’t fit a medical context.

Original screenshots below are preserved in their native Slovak — this is the real production system serving Kooperativa clients. My redesign mockups later in the case study are in English for portfolio readability.

Original Positive Flow: An 11-option NPS radio matrix and an immediately-demanded explanation field, ending in a generic “Write a Google Review” CTA. No advocate framing, no contextual prompts — and the upfront text-input requirement causes severe mobile drop-off.

Original Negative Flow: A single checkbox matrix collapses operator complaints, medical platform feedback, and unrelated logistics issues into the same data structure — no separation between actionable operational metrics and out-of-scope medical concerns.

Friction Point	Original Form	What I Built
Contextual Mismatch	”Field service technicians,” “policy limits” — roadside-assistance vocabulary applied to medical patients.	Healthcare-specific copy; operator behavior cleanly separated from medical-platform features.
High Cognitive Load	An 11-option NPS radio matrix as the first interaction on every rating path.	5-emoji satisfaction scale (1-click), embedded directly in the email body.
Friction-Heavy Inputs	Positive path demanded open text upfront. Negative path forced a checkbox matrix that mixed operational and medical concerns.	Positive: scannable tag pills for 3-second tapping. Negative: cleanly separated operator behavior from platform feedback, with optional text.
Domain Switch Trust Gap	Unannounced jump from diagnose.me to globalassistance.sk triggers phishing anxiety.	Email pre-frames the partnership: “share your anonymous feedback with our partner, Global Assistance Slovakia, who independently reviews this service,” paired with an explicit handoff-disclosure line.

The Challenge: How do we build a feedback system that respects the medical context, eliminates mobile friction, and turns a legally-required B2B2C handoff into a brand-strengthening moment?

The Strategy: Decoupling Brand Responsibilities

Three corporate identities competing for attention in a single email is overload. The strategy was to anchor each entity to one concept in the user’s mind — so the eye, and the trust, knows what each logo means.

Identity Overload: Three corporate entities pointing at each other in a single user moment — without role anchoring, the user has to do the routing themselves.

• Kooperativa = The Sponsor. Brought to you by your policy.
• Diagnose.me = The Medical Expert. Your digital care provider.
• Global Assistance = The Quality Guardian. Independent operational reviewer.

With GAS framed as a quality auditor — structurally distinct from the medical platform — the domain switch from diagnose.me to globalassistance.sk reads as a logical handoff. The user isn’t being redirected mid-flow; they’re being introduced to a separate party whose specific job is to evaluate service delivery.

On review gating: every rating is captured the instant a user taps an emoji — the public-review step is the only gated part, and the negative path routes to real resolution, not a dead end. The goal is routing the right next action, not hiding criticism.

The Solution: A Dual-Path Feedback Engine

The system has two phases. Phase A drops the entry friction to a single click in the user’s inbox. Phase B routes the user down whichever path will produce the most useful next action — public review or private recovery.

Phase A: The 1-Click Inbox Trigger

The form starts in the email body itself, branded as Diagnose.me. A 5-emoji satisfaction scale (Disappointed → Excited) is the entire ask — one tap. Two pieces of copy bracket the scale: a partnership-framing intro above primes anonymity and trust; a handoff-disclosure line below removes the domain-switch surprise.

The 1-Click Inbox Trigger: The old 11-option NPS matrix is replaced by a 5-emoji scale embedded directly in the email body — the rating registers in a single tap, before the user ever leaves their inbox. The bracketing copy does the trust work, pre-framing the partner handoff so the later domain switch never surprises them.

Three trust moves in one sentence: anonymous removes the chilling effect on negative feedback, our partner warms the third-party handoff into a familiar relationship, and independently reviews justifies why GAS — not Diagnose.me — is asking for the rating. The line below the scale (“Clicking an option will securely transfer you to the official Global Assistance Slovakia quality questionnaire”) finishes the job by closing the domain-switch trust gap that broke the original flow.

Every click counts. The emoji tap is the response — GAS captures the rating the moment a user clicks, before they ever see the questionnaire. If the user drops off here, the baseline data is already in. Phase B is additional feedback layered on top of a rating that’s already secured.

Phase B: The Semantic Split

The emoji a user taps determines which version of the GAS questionnaire renders next. The system makes the routing decision invisibly — same URL, different layout, opposite optimization goals.

Rating	Path	Optimization Goal
4–5 stars (Satisfied / Excited)	Positive: Advocate Funnel	Maximize public review conversion. Branded as GAS Quality Assurance. Ends with a Google Reviews CTA.
1–2 stars (Disappointed / Dissatisfied)	Negative: Recovery Loop	Disable the public funnel. Branded for empathy. Isolate operational complaints from medical feedback. Promise a 24-hour review.

POSITIVE PATH: Advocate Funnel (4–5 Stars)

When a user logs a positive experience, the public marketing funnel takes over. The layout is clean, fast, and ends with a frictionless path to a Google review.

Positive Path End-to-End: Triggered by 4–5 star ratings. Branded purely as GAS Quality Assurance. Three short steps; the final screen is the marketing payload.

• Tag-Pill Input Over Text: Replaced the open-ended “describe your experience” field with scannable tag pills (“Quick connection,” “Doctor’s approach,” “Helpful operator”). Three-second tapping replaces minutes of typing — critical on mobile.
• The Clipboard Bridge: The final screen automatically copies the user’s positive text to their device clipboard. A high-contrast “Copy & Go to Google Reviews” button completes the marketing loop in one tap.
• Medical Data Privacy, Stated Explicitly: Before the Google Reviews CTA, a fine-print note reassures: “We manage service quality logistics. Your private medical records and diagnostic details remain strictly confidential with Diagnose.me and are never accessible here or shared publicly.” Public reputation gain without violating the user’s medical data expectations.

NEGATIVE PATH: Recovery Loop (1–2 Stars)

When a user is unhappy, the public funnel is shut down entirely. The layout reframes itself for private remediation — empathy first, accountability second, no public marketing anywhere.

Negative Path End-to-End: Triggered by 1–2 star ratings. No Google Reviews CTA. Operator behavior is isolated from medical-platform feedback. Exit screen guarantees a 24-hour internal review.

• Empathetic Micro-Copy: The headline dynamically changes to “We’re sorry your experience wasn’t perfect. Help us fix it.” Tone-shift on first impression matters as much as the form fields.
• Root-Cause Isolation: Checkboxes force separation between operational complaints (operator behavior, hotline hold times) and medical-platform feedback. GAS gets actionable operational data; Diagnose.me’s medical product reputation isn’t entangled with unrelated logistics complaints.
• Anti-Retaliation Reassurance: Explicit fine print: “This survey is completely anonymous, confidential, and will not affect your insurance policy.” Removes the chilling effect of complaining about a sponsor-funded service.
• Accountability Metric: Exit screen guarantees that “Our quality management team reviews all reports within 24 hours to improve our services.” Turns a frustrating moment into brand reassurance — closes the loop.

Intended Impact — and What Happened

Straight on the outcome: this didn’t ship. The brief was “link the email to the existing form,” and that’s what my PM chose to ship. What follows is the impact the design was built to create, and why each move earns its place.

• Maximum Response Capture: Every emoji tap would register a baseline rating before the user sees the questionnaire — so response rate wouldn’t depend on form completion.
• Reputation Shielding: Public funnels and private recovery are separated by design — happy users build review volume; unhappy users never see a public CTA.
• Corporate Alignment: Medical-platform data stays separated from GAS’s operational audit metrics — designed to satisfy the multi-party data-handling agreements behind the partnership.

This wasn’t a redesign of a feedback form. It was a redesign of how three corporate identities co-exist in a single user moment — protecting the platform’s reputation, satisfying the integrator’s audit needs, and respecting the patient’s expectations all at once.