A red patch on a heatmap invites a quick story: "people want this" or "nobody cares about that". The map cannot support either sentence. It records where interactions happened. The reason comes from you, so it needs its own evidence.
The practical fix is to split every finding into three parts: what was measured, what might explain it, and what would prove that explanation wrong. The examples below use Microsoft Clarity, because its documentation defines each measure. The reasoning applies to other tools too, once you check their definitions.
What each map measures, and what it does not
Clarity's overview says click data shows which elements "resonate" with users. The measure underneath is simpler: a count of clicks. Keep the measure and the interpretation apart.
| Map | Documented measure | Tempting claim | What it supports |
|---|---|---|---|
| Click map | Clicks or taps per element, and % of clicks | "24% of visitors want this" | 24% of recorded clicks landed here |
