  Conducting data analysis tasks rarely occur in isolation. Especially in
intelligence analysis scenarios where different experts contribute knowledge to
a shared understanding, members must communicate how insights develop to
establish common ground among collaborators. The use of provenance to
communicate analytic sensemaking carries promise by describing the interactions
and summarizing the steps taken to reach insights. Yet, no universal guidelines
exist for communicating provenance in different settings. Our work focuses on
the presentation of provenance information and the resulting conclusions
reached and strategies used by new analysts. In an open-ended, 30-minute,
textual exploration scenario, we qualitatively compare how adding different
types of provenance information (specifically data coverage and interaction
history) affects analysts' confidence in conclusions developed, propensity to
repeat work, filtering of data, identification of relevant information, and
typical investigation strategies. We see that data coverage (i.e., what was
interacted with) provides provenance information without limiting individual
investigation freedom. On the other hand, while interaction history (i.e., when
something was interacted with) does not significantly encourage more mimicry,
it does take more time to comfortably understand, as represented by less
confident conclusions and less relevant information-gathering behaviors. Our
results contribute empirical data towards understanding how provenance
summarizations can influence analysis behaviors.
