Statements vs. Reporting: L1 Differentiation
Information architecture comparisons and how users think about Statements vs. Reports
Prepared by: Perre Shelton Vice President, Payments XD Research
Date: February 2025
The Problem & The Bottom Line
As Access launches its new navigation, we must ensure critical financial documents align with user expectations. We tested three architectural approaches to determine the most intuitive path for users to locate Statements.
The Core Problem
Users mentally separate financial analytics (Reports) from official records (Statements) — but the current architecture doesn't reflect that divide.
Key Finding
A distinct, stand-alone L1 architecture for Statements significantly improved task success rates across all core metrics.
Bottom Line
54% of participants preferred Statements as a stand-alone L1 — the clear winning architecture.
Research Rigor & Methodology
Methodology
Unmoderated tree testing paired with a qualitative
feedback component to capture both behavioral data
and user rationale.
Sample Size
N = 200 proxy users — a robust,
statistically meaningful sample for
navigation research.
Participant Profile
100%
Review Transactions
All participants review transaction details in their role
67%
Manage Payments
Responsible for payment management
63%
Run Reports
Regularly generate financial reports
Core Metrics
Measured by Success Rate (finding the right
category), Directness (no backtracking), and
Qualitative Feedback (user rationale).
This study was designed to capture both quantitative
task performance and qualitative user reasoning,
providing a complete picture of navigation behavior.
The Mental Model Gap
Users hold fundamentally distinct mental models for Reports and Statements — one belongs to the future (analytics), the other to the past (verification). Understanding this divide is the foundation of the architecture decision.
📊 How Users View Reports
The Future / Analytics
Reports are seen as dynamic, processed, and forward-looking tools for decision-making.
📄 How Users View Statements
The Past / Verification
Statements are seen as static, official, and audit-ready records — not analytics tools.
The Voice of the User
Participant language revealed a consistent and strong cognitive separation between these two document types — a signal that the architecture must reflect the same distinction.
The Statements Mindset
Users associate Statements with official, unprocessed, and legally verifiable records — documents you submit externally.
"These are official documents that you could send off to get loan approval."
"Bank statements show all of the previous account history most accurately."
The Reports Mindset
Users associate Reports with interactive analytics, trend analysis, and processed data — tools you work with internally.
"I could analyze trends using existing reports or I may need to run the report."
The word "run" signals an active, analytical mindset — contrasting sharply with the passive retrieval implied by Statements.
The Pivot: Testing Architecture Variations
To resolve the tension between user mental models and the existing navigation structure, we formulated and tested three distinct design hypotheses — each representing a fundamentally different architectural philosophy.
1
Version A
Statements as a stand-alone L1
Statements is elevated to its own top-level navigation category, fully independent from Reports and Accounts.
2
Version B
Statements as an embedded L2
Statements lives beneath Accounts as a sub-category, treating it as a feature of account management rather than a distinct destination.
3
Version C
Reports & Statements combined at L1
Both document types are merged into a single top-level navigation category, assuming sufficient overlap in user perception.
The Proof: Task Success & Findability
Clear L1 labels that accurately forecast what users will find beneath them are the single greatest driver of navigation success. When Statements became its own category, task performance nearly doubled.
24%
Version B Success Rate
Task completion for retrieving loan-application data when Statements was buried at L2
47%
Version A Success Rate
Same task completion rate when Statements was elevated to a stand-alone L1 — a +96% improvement
72%
L1 Success: Trend Analysis
Renaming "Reports" to "Reports and Insights" clarified analytics tasks and drove this L1 success rate
Why Nomenclature Matters
Navigation labels function as cognitive signposts. When a label accurately forecasts the content beneath it, users navigate directly and confidently. When it doesn't, users backtrack, hesitate, or fail entirely.
Key Insight: Renaming "Reports" to "Reports and Insights" was sufficient to resolve ambiguity for analytics tasks — but Statements required full L1 separation to perform well.
The Proof: User Preference
Beyond task performance, participants were explicitly asked which architecture they preferred. The results reinforce the quantitative data — users strongly favor a navigation structure that mirrors their mental model.
54.55%
28.28%
17.17%
Version A — Statements as Stand-alone L1·54.55%
·
Version B — Statements as L2 (under Accounts)·28.28%
·
Version C — Reports & Statements Combined·17.17%
·
What the Preference Data Tells Us
54% — Version A
Statements as a stand-alone L1. The clear majority preference — distinct architecture wins.
28% — Version B
Statements embedded under Accounts at L2. A minority preferred the subordinate placement.
17% — Version C
Reports and Statements combined. The least preferred option — confirming users resist merging these categories.
Strategic Product Implications
The data points toward a clear architectural direction — and the business case for acting on it extends well beyond navigation clarity.
Enhance User Trust
Aligning features with how users distinctly perceive them — unprocessed records vs. processed analytics — ensures tools are used in their anticipated context, building confidence in the product.
Reduce Support Debt
Optimizing L1 architecture to guide users directly to Statements can improve self-service effectiveness and reduce the volume of statements-related support requests.
Maximize Accessibility
Statements users require immediate navigational clarity. Strengthening Statements as a standalone L1 ensures all users — regardless of technical fluency — can locate critical documents with confidence.
The Next Iteration
This research establishes a strong foundation for the L1 architecture decision. The next phase focuses on refining the label itself to maximize clarity and set accurate user expectations.
What's Next
We are advancing this research to explore the optimal label for the new L1 Statements category. The goal is to determine which label most accurately sets user expectations for the content they will find.
The Label Test
We will test "Statements and Documents" against "Statements" to identify which term better communicates the breadth of content users can access within this category.
Future Considerations
File Vault Exploration
We will investigate what expectations users carry for a broader, container-style label like "File Vault" — and whether it could serve as a scalable long-term architecture.
Label Precision Testing
Continued tree testing will validate whether terminology shifts drive measurable improvements in directness and task success rates (i.e. “Statements & Documents”).
Implementation Readiness
Findings will be shared with navigation and IA stakeholders to inform the final L1 architecture decision for the Access platform launch.
JPM ACCESS NAVIGATION - STATEMENTS
Findings Reports: Information architecture comparisons and how users think about Statements vs. Reports
Report prepared by:
Perre Shelton, Vice President, Payments XD Research
February 2025
Strategic Approach
As Access is launching new navigation, we are testing three ways to display Statements to clarify how well each aligns with user expectations.
Research Method
We conducted unmoderated tree testing with a qualitative component.
2
Example Tree Test Question
Example:
You need to send the past three years of your company's bank activity to your legal and compliance teams. Where would you go to gather the required information?
3
Step 1: User selects from top-level navigation
Step 2: User drills down and selects final answer
Select
Home |
Payments |
Accounts |
Liquidity |
Foreign Exchange |
Reports & Insight |
Statements |
Administration |
Merchant Services |
Pending Actions |
Home |
Payments |
Accounts |
Liquidity |
Foreign Exchange |
Reports & Insight |
Statements |
Administration |
Merchant Services |
Pending Actions |
Bank Statements |
Billing Statements |
Liquidity Statements |
Characteristics of Participant Sample
Sample Size: N = 200
4
TREASURY PORTAL EXPERIENCES | % |
(Users may select all that apply) | |
JP Morgan Access | 42% |
Wells Fargo | 35% |
Bank of America CashPro | 31% |
Citi Direct | 13% |
Citi Connect | 11% |
Stripe | 10% |
ACTIVITIES IN THEIR ROLE | % |
(Users may select all that apply) | |
Reviewing transaction details and history (screening requirement) | 100% |
Managing payments (sending/receiving) | 67% |
Running reports or pulling data | 63% |
Managing users and permissions | 19% |
ORGANIZATION'S ANNUAL REVENUE | % |
$20 - under $100 million | 42% |
$100 - under $500 million | 26% |
$500 million or more | 32% |
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE | % |
0 - 3 years | 21% |
4 - 6 years | 29% |
7 - 9 years | 27% |
10+ years | 23% |
Description of Metrics
✓ Success rate
The percentage of users who found the right category (or categories) for that task.
• Poor: <40% • Fair: 40% – 60% • Good: 61% – 80% • Very Good: 80% – 90% • Excellent: >90%
Source: Nielsen Norman
↔ Directness
The percentage of users who went to the right category immediately, without backtracking or trying any other categories
❝ Qualitative Feedback
User rationale for a given selection or answer choice; allowing us a deeper understanding of their IA expectations
5
Executive Summary
6
FINDING 1
FINDING 2
FINDING 3
Participants attributed analytics to Reports and legal/auditing tasks to Statements
L1 architecture and nomenclature significantly improved task success rates
Statements as L1 was marginally better and significantly more preferred
79%
Reports and Insights for Analytics/Trends
69%
Statements for Legal Documentation
73%
Reports and Insights for Business Intelligence
69%
selected correct Reports and Insights category
57%
selected correct Statements category
24%▸47%
task completion with Statements as separate L1
54%
preferred Statements as a distinct L1 category
47%
success rate as L1 vs. 41% as embedded L2
28%
preferred Statements as embedded L2 (17% combined)
Info Architecture Comparisons
3/24/2026
7
KEY INSIGHT #1
Most participants attributed analytics to the reporting category and attributed official/legal documentation or auditing to statements.
3/24/2026
8
Auditing vs. Analytics
Most participants associated the Statements capability with official, unprocessed, and verifiable records.
REPORTED SEMANTIC ASSOCIATIONS TO REPORTS�[Multiple Choice]
Most participants associated the Statements category with historical data, legal documentation, and auditing.
10
SAMPLE QUALITATIVE RESPONSES WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THEIR SELECTION:
"These are official documents that you could send off to get loan approval"
"Bank statements show all of the previous account history most accurately"
User Selections
When asked where they would navigate for historical bank activity, legal documents for tax purposes, and information for an audit team
“
11%
20%
13%
Payments
Statements
Reports and
Insights
Accounts
Most Popular Selection
Intended Selection
Most Popular Selection
+ Intended Selection
57%
Auditing vs. Analytics
Most participants associated tasks involving analytics and processing data, to Reports and Insights.
REPORTED SEMANTIC ASSOCIATIONS TO REPORTS�[Multiple Choice]
Most participants associated the Reports and Insights category with analytics / trends, business intelligence, and filtering.�
10
SAMPLE QUALITATIVE RESPONSES WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THEIR SELECTION:
“Analytics would be in reports and insights"
"I could analyze trends using existing reports or I may need to run the report."
"Analytic reports contain the previous data I need to review trends and make financial decisions."
User Selections
When asked where they would navigate for tasks related to analysis of spending/cost trends, data for a business intelligence dashboard, and filtered/sorted data
3/24/2026
Payments
Statements
Reports and
Insights
Accounts
Most Popular Selection
Intended Selection
11%
11%
69%
10%
Most Popular Selection
& Intended Selection
“
KEY INSIGHT #2
Participants were most successful when L1 architecture helped them parse their tasks; and when L1 nomenclature forecasted use-cases for a given navigation category.
3/24/2026
11
Forecasting Use-Cases
When L1 architecture helped participants parse different types of tasks as statements-related or not, success was significantly improved.
3/24/2026
13
Reports and Statements as a shared L1
Task: You want to see how much the bank has charged you for service fees in the last month.
Reports & Statements–36%
View Reports–11%
Run Reports–06%
Accounts–19%
Statements as a separate L1 category from Reports
Task: Your company is applying for a loan, and the loan provider requires you to submit your company's bank activity for the previous year.
47% L1 Success Rate
47% L1 - L2 Success Rate
Statements–47%
Insights & Analytics–04%
Reports & Insights–18%
Most Popular Selection
Intended Selection
36% L1 Success Rate
24% L1 - L2 Success Rate
COMPARATIVE BASELINE FROM PREVIOUS TESTING
View Statements–24%
+11 points
Bank Statements–45%
Liquidity Statements–02%
Run Reports–14%
+23 points
Forecasting Use-Cases
Participants were more successful when L1 nomenclature clarified the use-case difference between Statements v. Reports.
3/24/2026
14
User Selections
Tasks related to: Historical data, Legal documentation, Auditing
11%
57%
20%
13%
Payments
Statements
Reports and
Insights
Accounts
Most Popular Selection
+ Intended Selection
vs
Tasks related to: Analytics/Trends, Business Intelligence, Filtering and Sorting
11%
11%
69%
10%
Payments
Statements
Reports and
Insights
Accounts
Most Popular Selection
+ Intended Selection
Most Popular Selection
Intended Selection
User Selections
Forecasting Use-Cases
When L1 nomenclature clarified which category was best for data processing and analytics tasks, navigation options proved more intuitive to users.
3/24/2026
16
Reports and Statements as a Shared L1
Task: You need to upload an excel file that includes balances of accounts and a list of transactions from yesterday to your ERP system.
36% L1 Success Rate
18% L1 - L2 Success Rate
Reports & Statements–36%
View Statements–11%
View Reports–11%
Run Reports–18%
Accounts Management–12%
Administration–19%
Reports and Insights as a new L1 category
Task: You want to analyze trends in your company's spending over the past six months. Where would you go to start this process?
72% L1 Success Rate
72% L1 - L2 Success Rate
62% Direct Success
🏆
Reports and Insights–72%
Insight and Analytics–48%
View/Run Reports–18%
Cashflow Intelligence–06%
Run Reports–14%
Insights and Analytics–04%
Reports and Insights–18%
Most Popular Selection
Intended Selection
+36 points
KEY INSIGHT #3
When comparing Statements as a L1 category vs. Statements as an embedded capability at L2, Statements as a distinct L1 category performed better and was more preferred by participants.
3/24/2026
17
Statements at L1
Initial design validation shows that Statements at L1 instead of being embedded at L2 is a marginally more effective approach.
3/24/2026
18
Statements as an embedded L2
Task: You are assisting with your company's tax preparation, and you need to get official transaction activity for the past year.
45% L1 Success Rate
41% L1 - L2 Success Rate
22% Direct Success
Accounts–45%
Bank Statements–31%
Liquidity Statements–05%
View Accounts–08%
Run Reports–20%
Reports and Insights–36%
+2
Statements as a stand-alone L1 category
Task: Your company is applying for a loan, and the loan provider requires you to submit your company's bank activity for the previous year.
47% L1 Success Rate
47% L1 - L2 Success Rate
39% Direct Success
🏆
Statements–47%
Bank Statements–45%
Liquidity Statements–02%
Reports and Insights–18%
Run Reports–14%
Insights and Analytics–04%
Most Popular Selection
Intended Selection
Statements at L1
After a secondary validation, Statements still performed marginally better as a distinct L1 category when compared to being embedded at L2.
Statements as an embedded L2
Task: "You are meeting with an audit team and you need to print documentation of all bank activity from last year for them to review."
46% L1 Success Rate
46% L1 - L2 Success Rate
33% Direct Success
Accounts–46%
Bank Account Statements–45%
Billing/Statements–01%
Run Reports–14%
View Reports–05%
Reports and Insights–26%
Most Popular Selection
Intended Selection
Statements as a stand-alone L1 category
Task: "You need to send the past three years of your company's bank activity to your legal and compliance teams."
49% L1 Success Rate
49% L1 - L2 Success Rate
31% Direct Success
🏆
Statements–49%
Bank Statements–49%
View/Run Reports–18%
Cashflow Intelligence–06%
Run Reports–12%
View Reports–04%
Reports and Insights–26%
Statements at L1
Based on how participants use statements in their roles, they expressed a clear preference for the design in which Statements is a distinct L1 category.
3/24/2026
20
Statements as a stand-alone L1
Statements as an embedded L2
Reports and Statements combined at L1
Strategic Implications
Key Insight
Design Implication
Product Implication
3/24/2026
21
Most participants attributed analytics to the reporting category and attributed official/legal documentation or auditing to statements.
How might we clearly communicate, through user-friendly IA and nomenclature, categories that distinguish official unprocessed records vs. data to be processed and analyzed?
Aligning features with how users distinctly perceive the statements capability can improve user satisfaction, enhance user trust, and ensure that our statements tools are effectively utilized in the anticipated context.
Participants were most successful when L1 architecture helped them parse their tasks; and when L1 nomenclature forecasted use-cases for a given navigation category.
How might we enhance the L1 architecture and nomenclature to better support users in parsing their tasks and predicting use cases for each navigation category?
By optimizing L1 architecture to effectively guide users in parsing their tasks and refine L1 nomenclature to accurately forecast use cases, we can improve user effectiveness and potentially lower the number of statements-related support requests.
When comparing Statements as a L1 category vs. Statements as an embedded capability at L2, Statements as a distinct L1 category performed better and was more preferred by participants.
How might we leverage the strengths of Statements as a distinct L1 category with the goal of maximizing user performance and accessibility?
That Statements performed better as a distinct L1 category rather than as an embedded L2 capability indicates that Statements-users benefit from clarity and easy accessibility. As such, we should prioritize strengthening the effectiveness Statements as a standalone L1 category.
What's next - Statement and Documents Navigation
NEXT STUDY: COMPARING STATEMENT AND DOCUMENTS VS. STATEMENTS TO IDENTIFY THE MOST USER-FRIENDLY L1 LABEL
Study overview
Goal
Statements and Documents at L1 is being explored to better clarify for users what they might find under the navigation label.
Research objectives
3/24/2026
15
End Report
Report prepared by: Perre Shelton, Vice President, Payments XD Research
February 2025
3/24/2026
22