Simplifying high-volume review, entity consolidation, QA, and sensitive-data configuration for an enterprise breach-response platform.
Complexity→Structure
↖ Dhawal
Role
UX Designer
Focus
UX Strategy · IA Data-heavy UX
Team
Product · UX Engineering · QA
Product
Enterprise SaaS Data Breach Response
01 / The context
When the data is complex, the interface cannot be.
Data breach response extends far beyond document review. Teams move projects through stages, identify and consolidate entities, monitor QA, configure sensitive PII rules, and understand progress across a connected system.
The design challengeHow might we make complex breach-response operations understandable without hiding the controls experts need?
02 / Understanding the system
I approached Canopy as a workflow problem.
Designing screens independently would have fragmented the experience further. The work started by understanding relationships between tasks, responsibilities, permissions, information, and system states.
01
Complexity
Interconnected workflows and system states
02
Scale
Large volumes of documents and entities
03
Visibility
Pending, completed, batched, and QA states
04
Sensitivity
PII actions requiring deliberate control
05
Responsibility
Different access for admins, managers, reviewers
03 / Mapping the experience
A shared mental model for the whole platform.
The product was organized around the operational journey, creating a common structure for deciding where functionality belonged.
01Set up project→
02Upload & process→
03Review→
04Identify entities→
05Consolidate→
06Quality assurance→
07Export / report
04 / Information architecture
Separate doing the work from configuring how it behaves.
Primary tasks remain inside the project workspace. Administrative controls live under Manage Project, preserving focus without removing capability.
Reduce decision time before increasing information density.
Status navigation, search, scannable metadata, contextual actions, and pagination help users find one matter among hundreds and take the next action quickly.
Design decision / 01
Prioritize the information required to find a project and act.
Every available project detail did not need to compete for attention in the initial view.
06 / Entity consolidation
Simplify the interaction around the dataset.
The data remained inherently dense. Clarity came from the tools around it: search, sorting, column controls, pagination, raw and consolidated views, and entity-level actions.
The interface helps users work with sensitive records without losing context.
07 / Review visibility
Overview first. Detail on demand.
Review managers needed to see what was complete, what required attention, and where workflows were slowing down before investigating details.
01
Immediate statusPending review, alternate workflow, and QA.
02
Operational progressCompleted, batched, and not batched.
03
Workflow intelligenceDetails, change reasons, and automation.
08 / Sensitive actions
Consequence changes the interaction philosophy.
PII controls use explicit toggles, contextual help, categorized selection, regional groups, disabled states, and confirmation. A focused side panel provides space to review scope before committing.
The higher the consequence, the clearer the intent and confirmation.
01 / Configure behavior
→
02 / Review scope
09 / Reusable patterns
Consistency becomes more important as complexity grows.
