To validate this hypothesis and better understand the user experience, I led a qualitative and quantitative research initiative. It included five-second testing, structured usability sessions, and surveys with customers and internal stakeholders. The goal was to identify the key blockers in how people interpreted financial terms, CTAs, and displayed values. The results were conclusive. Out of six participants in the five-second test, none correctly described the purpose of the proposal screen. The responses varied from “financing simulation” to “credit offer result” — and even “a party announcement”. When asked “What is the total value of the property?”, only one person selected the correct option, and several interpreted partial values or unrelated numbers as the final price. When asked “How much will you pay in the first month?”, all users either answered incorrectly or expressed uncertainty. The lack of date context and overlapping fields (e.g., entry + installment) made it hard to identify the actual disbursement amount. Similar issues appeared when users were asked about the entry amount. Many confused it with the down payment, others could not locate the correct value, and conflicting data across cards and pages only amplified the problem. These findings confirmed that users struggled to understand the most basic elements of the proposal, including the total cost, monthly commitment, and even what the screen represented. Layout hierarchy, unclear language, redundant CTAs, and lack of contextual support were all contributing factors.