Aglet

Investigate missing derivatives with source and revision traces

Investigation should follow a source revision through every boundary that can create or attach a derivative. Use a normal source, a failed derivative path, and a revision replacement, then compare records and visible controls. The brief should identify whether the gap is production, linkage, or presentation.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Choose derivative fixtures

    Prepare one source expected to produce a preview, text, and converted representation, one that follows a slower path, and a revised source with changed content. Record expected outputs and source identities before processing.

  2. Trace output lifecycle

    Capture stage starts and finishes, derivative identifiers, content metadata, association to source revision, storage result, status reads, and rendered controls. Mark whether an output is absent, attached to another revision, or present but hidden.

  3. Locate the first gap

    Compare normal and failing traces to identify the earliest missing creation or binding event. Verify source content markers when revisions are involved, and leave storage or timing causes as hypotheses without direct evidence.

What to carry forward

The investigation is sufficient when source and derivative traces identify the first missing or detached boundary and tie it to a blocked capability. If an output exists outside the visible workflow, preserve its identity and report the association gap rather than duplicating it.

Technical background: W3C guidance.

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