Aglet

Investigate category search boundaries through route comparisons

An investigation should show how route context changes the query and result universe. Replay category and global paths with the same phrase, compare strict and inclusive filters, and inspect breadcrumbs and facets. Keep route semantics separate from relevance or inventory explanations.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Build the route matrix

    List route, breadcrumb, phrase, category path, filters, sort, result types, and facets for category and global searches. Include an empty phrase or category landing path when relevant. Preserve one expected inclusion and one expected exclusion.

  2. Trace the first difference

    Change one scope input at a time and compare returned products, facet buckets, labels, and URL. Record whether the route, phrase, or filter creates the divergence. A result missing from strict scope may be correct if the breadcrumb says so.

  3. Write the scope brief

    State the first mismatch, affected route, user consequence, and competing explanations. Recommend one bounded contract or interface experiment with a pass condition. Do not attribute an exclusion to ranking while the category boundary remains unresolved.

What to carry forward

The investigation is complete when route-to-result scope can be replayed and the first divergence is named. Stop with one contract or copy experiment. Keep category, global, and filter semantics separate so a fix does not broaden results without a stated user choice.

Technical background: Adobe developer documentation.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow