Designed regenerative verification as a connected system, not a clipboard problem
- User research
- Farms in pilot
- Design system scalability
- Certifiable regenerative practices. 3 by satellite monitoring and 14 by data upload review.
- Cross-platform design
- Platforms, one loop. Supply-chain web & farmer platform for mobile and web.
N
17
2
- Role
- UX/UI Designer · led the design work, sole designer
- Timeline
- Q2 2025 · Q3 2025
- Team
- 1 PM · 3 engineers (1 BE / 1 Flutter / 1 FE)
- Environments involved
- Web farmer platform (Angular) · Mobile farmer app (Flutter) · Analytics (Angular)
- Status
- W1 Shipped · W2 (Q3 2026)See live
Context
Farmers were doing the work. Nobody could see it.
Regenerative practices — cover crops, reduced tillage, manure-based fertility, planned rotation — mostly leave no trace in the supply chain's data. A farmer commits to them because they believe in the soil and the crop; the brand sourcing from that farm is now legally obligated to know it's happening; the loop between them was missing.
xFarm Regenerative is the loop. Supply chains design programs and watch them roll up. Farmers report the practices they're shipping and get recognised for them. Both sides see the same project.
Challenge
Satellites can't see everything.
Satellite MRV is the only way to verify regenerative practices at supply-chain scale — but it has hard limits. A satellite reads a cover-crop canopy or reduced-tillage residue in clear conditions; it can't see manure under soil, seed variety, or what happened on a cloudy week. Satellite-only would leave entire categories of practice out of the program.
So manual verification enters — but only where it's needed. Two triggers: an unclear satellite read (the farmer uploads evidence — photos, activity logs, soil tests — to close the gap), or a practice satellite can't see at all (verification lives entirely on platform data). The farmer reports the practice the same way either way; the supply chain sees one consistent result.
Solution
A connected system, not a verification tool.
The product had to do four things at once: let supply chains design programs, let farmers report from the field, verify outcomes at scale, and surface results in a way both sides could trust. The verification architecture was a multi-stakeholder call (see Challenge); three design calls carried the weight on the design side:
A status taxonomy that hides the seams.
Satellite, sampled, and full manual review each return different raw statuses. We collapsed them into one minimal tag set that reads identically on the supply-chain dashboard and the farmer app — the verification path stays invisible.
A mobile surface that does more than read.
On mobile, farmers scan field status at a glance — a map keyed by verification and practice, a list flagging missing info — then drill into a field to view its history and upload evidence. Web stays home for the heavy work.
Map overview vs field and practice detail
An analytics page where farmer and supply chain meet through data.
The supply chain's surface, but every part reaches to the farmer: they push out a protocol, evidence flows back, and where satellites can't confirm a practice they accept or reject the farmer's uploads. One page, both sides of the loop.
Pre-launch line
Next steps
First pilot launches [TBD: Q? 2026]. The metrics below are the success criteria the design is being measured against, not realized results.
User testing plan
Does mobile carry the loop in the field?
What share of farmers in the first pilot can complete the loop on mobile alone — scan field status, drill into a field that's missing data, and upload the evidence from there. Designing mobile to carry the loop (Solution Move 3) was a design call; the pilot is where it gets tested in real conditions — patchy connectivity, attention split between field and form, real seasonal pressure.
Does the dual architecture carry its share?
Across submissions in the first pilot, the proportion verified by satellite alone, satellite + farmer evidence, and platform data only. The architecture only holds if no single path is over- or under-carrying — too much manual review breaks the economic case; too little means satellite coverage is being trusted beyond what it can actually see.
Analytics tracking plan
Decrease in load time
Fields the user hasn't subscribed to no longer load weight on the platform.
A B2B client became a co-author.
The Dyson Farms workshop turned the brief from "translate UK rules" into "design for the next client we don't have yet."
Other projects