Why adding more case studies hurts your chances

Adding one more case study often feels productive. It feels safe, like you’re increasing your chances. In practice, it does the opposite.

More work increases surface area. It introduces noise. It gives reviewers more opportunities to hesitate, compare, and second-guess. Hiring decisions don’t improve with volume; they improve when the clarity of your decisions, trade-offs, and constraints is undeniable.

When I review portfolios, resumes, or case studies, I’m not looking for more artifacts, trendy interactions, or a complete log of everything you did during the design process. I’m asking myself a simple question: Can I trust this person’s decisions?

Trust doesn’t come from polish, or even effort. It comes from seeing that someone knows what matters, what doesn’t, and is willing to commit to that judgment.

This is where generic advice starts to break down. Templates help early on because they establish structure, but they don’t teach judgment. And at a certain level, judgment is the differentiator.

Two designers can follow the same advice, apply the same frameworks, and produce work of similar quality. The one who moves forward is almost always the one whose decisions are more clearly conveyed.

They’re explicit about which case study actually leads the story, which artifacts earn attention versus dilute it, and which choices demonstrate ownership rather than quietly weakening trust.

Designers who convert show less, but with clear intent.

​
If this resonates, and you feel like your work is strong but not converting the way it should, this is exactly the lens I bring into my 1:1 diagnostic sessions. I’m opening a small number of end-of-January sessions focused on clarifying judgment, tightening positioning, and removing ambiguity from how your work is being interpreted across resumes, case studies, and interviews.

You can find more information here.
​

David Campana​
​Founder, Level^Up​
Head of UX | Ex-Apple, WeWork, Verizon

PS: These sessions are not portfolio redesigns or generic feedback. They’re focused on clarifying judgment, tightening your story, and removing ambiguity from how your work is actually being evaluated.