Portfolio 2026

I design systems where progress becomes visible.

For eight years, I fielded calls that should never have happened. Now I design service systems where intake is action-ready, ownership is explicit, risk is contained, and uncertainty does not become follow-up.

Test the framework View operating evidence
JP Pelissari, Service Designer focused on CX systems and service operations
13,644repeated-contact tickets converted into signal
40diagnostic points across four trust dimensions
4–5 → 1–2clarification loops reduced in better-qualified intakes
70%data integrity improvement after implementation
Role translation Customer Onboarding · Workflow Visibility · Handoff Governance · Product-Facing Operations Primary signal Service Designer / CX Systems Operating layer intake · status · ownership · next step Business language TTV · cost-to-serve · escalation containment Artifact style governance logic before UI screens
Interactive diagnostic

Make the visibility gap measurable.

The portfolio is built around a simple operating claim: trust degrades when clients cannot see progress, ownership, risk, or next steps. The simulator makes that logic scannable on desktop and mobile.

Trust Velocity simulator

Move the four operating conditions. The score updates the risk band, symptom, proof case, and likely product requirement.

Intake Completeness7.2
Status Visibility4.6
Ownership Clarity6.1
Next-Step Communication5.4
Trust Velocity Score
5.9
Unstable
Risk driverStatus Visibility
Likely symptomRepeated follow-up because progress is not observable.
Recommended interventionRequest-state model, delay disclosure, SLA-triggered updates.
Relevant proofAethel / Empire
Product-facing requirementVisibility monitor + state inference.
Operating Evidence

Four environments. Same structural problem.

Repeated contact, ownership drift, silent progress, and unstructured decisions are not isolated service issues. These cases show how failure patterns became governance logic, measurable controls, and product-facing requirements.

View through role lens

Flagship Framework

Trust Velocity Framework

Strategic diagnostic spine for identifying where onboarding trust degrades across intake, status visibility, ownership, and next-step communication.

13,644 tickets 40 audit points 0–10 risk score
Strategic spineView framework →
Operating Evidence 01

Fora Intake Architecture

Onboarding and intake architecture that reduced clarification loops by making client context advisor-ready before the first productive action.

4–5 → 1–2 loops ~20 min recovered
Onboarding / TTVRead case →
Operating Evidence 03

Hotel Unique Execution Visibility

Cross-functional implementation without formal authority: shared request state, adoption rules, and handoff governance across hotel departments.

3 → 1 tracking systems 70% data integrity
Implementation / adoptionRead case →
Operating Evidence 02

Aethel / Empire Visibility Governance

Operational visibility governance that converts repeated-contact behavior into request-state logic, ownership rules, and escalation-reduction requirements.

9 request states 40% target reduction
Visibility / escalationRead case →
Supporting Artifact

ACE Decision Control

Decision governance under service failure: risk classification, contingency gating, human review, and accountable decision logging.

5 paths 100% log rule
Decision governanceReview artifact →

My work sits between frontline reality and product-facing systems.

I translate repeated service friction into operating rules: what must be captured, who owns the next action, when silence becomes risk, and which decision paths need human review.

The portfolio is intentionally built to help a hiring manager scan the logic first, then inspect the case evidence when needed.