Reporting Frequency for Qualitative Usability Testing

Will keep this as succinct as possible. Within my UXR team, there is a very political and philosophical divide between qual and quant UXR. Recently discussions have led me to believe that we will stop reporting on the frequency of usability issues encountered by users (e.g. 4 out of 5 users experience X issue).

NN/g suggest that the severity of a usability problem is a combination of 3 factors: frequency, impact and persistence.

The fact that this could be mandated just doesn’t sit right with me. Everything I have read and consumed on the topic tells me that frequency, whilst not as important as impact and persistence, is a factor to consider, and it is a standard practice to include this in reporting. This includes Sauro, Bill Albert, as well as the surrounding academic research on the topic. I understand that this is not statistical significance, but it is indicative of a trend.

My worry is that we are treating behavioural data with the same skepticism that we do attitudinal data. Behavioural data has higher construct and external validity, and is relatively more consistent. I am not asking users which design they prefer. I am not asking users which feature is more appealing. I am not asking users to self-report a rating and averaging the rating across 5 participants. I am observing their behaviour, understanding the nature of their problem, why it’s happening, and applying a rough heuristic of frequency to that evaluation so we can ideate, iterate and test again. Can anyone steel man the case not to report on frequency? I’m a mid level and what I think will have very little impact on our decision, but I feel a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. Please, roast me, play Devil’s advocate.