Ultra PatternsAI interface patterns with receiptsULTRA project

Pattern 05 · Dashboard with AI insights, Chat or assistant · Interaction pattern

View

Urgency labels for prioritisation

Seen in a case Built for a real case and observed with its users, or built for a case whose user test is still to come. No controlled comparison yet.

Practice view. What to build, the words on screen and how to measure it. Switch to Research for why it should work, the framework properties and the references.Research view. The research side is shown below the card: why it should work, the properties it targets and the references. Switch to Practice to hide it.

The AI assigns one of three urgency levels to each item and shows it as a consistent tag in the list, with the reason one click away.

WhyPeople with a full inbox scan before they read. Three levels are usually enough to decide what to open first, and the tag makes the AI's ordering visible instead of silently reordering the list.
WhenLists of incoming work where order matters: e-mail, tickets, requests, tasks.
Not whenWhen the AI reorders the list silently; users lose their own order and do not know why an item moved.

The system shows how it worksThe user stays in chargeCase: CNEXT Mail2Flow (company approval pending)

Done right, done wrong

Schematic screens, not real products. Click a screen to enlarge it.
Right. Three levels, consistent colour and position, the user's own order kept.
Wrong. Seven colours and a list silently re-sorted by the AI.

In practice

The CNEXT test compared two mornings: a task board where the accountant sets the order, and a guided brief where the AI proposes it. The urgency tags are the same in both. What differs is who decides the sequence; five of seven wanted to decide it themselves (see Board first, guided brief on request).

The tag itself passed: on the board every participant found the urgent label, some after a moment. The label next to it failed. A relative time tag, ‘3d’, was read as three days old, due in three days, wait three days, or three days until overdue, one reading per participant. Write time in words or as a date: ‘Due Friday’, ‘Received 3 days ago’. And one senior asked the question nobody else voiced: by when does each task have to be done? An urgency level says how soon; it does not replace the deadline.

Words on screen

"High · Medium · Low""Why high? Client deadline tomorrow""Sort my way"

Obligations to keep in mind (AI Act, GDPR)

  • Keep the user's own ordering available next to the AI's. (O4, IUI 2026, Table 1)

Design considerations, not legal advice or a conformity assessment. What O1 to O5 mean.

Build it

Illustrative signatures, not a published library: the names below are suggestions to adapt to your stack. Thresholds are examples to tune on your own data.

States: tagged, reason-open, overridden

Component: <UrgencyTag level="high" reason="..." />

Prompt snippet: Assign urgency high, medium or low. High only when a deadline or a client escalation is explicit in the text. Return the sentence that justifies it.

Measure it

Faster, fewer errors · from logsMental effort · 5 minPlan your testTen minutes per participant is the usual budget: pick the two or three cards that fit.

Same idea, other names

Try it

Open the demo

Research side · why it should work

Why it should work

The mechanism, notes and references for this card are written together with the science editor at KU Leuven Augment. Until then this side lists the properties the pattern targets and the contexts in which it was seen.

Properties targeted

Efficiency · Cognitive load · Reliance · Vocabulary bridge

Across contexts

ContextUsersStateResult
CNEXT Mail2Flow, Kairos prototypeaccountants, desktopSeen in a casethe urgent label was found by all 7 on the board; the relative label '3d' was read four different ways; one participant asked for deadlines per task
Your contextBring your case

Editors

Practice: Abasin Abdul Khalil · Science: to be assigned by KU Leuven Augment · card v1.0 · 2026-09-08