Aglet

Investigate document stage guidance with action traces

Investigation should connect a state label to what the document can actually do and what each control changes. Use pending, partial, and failed fixtures, then follow wait, retry, replace, and revisit paths. The brief should identify the first action boundary that becomes ambiguous.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Define stage fixtures

    Prepare a document waiting on an early stage, one with a partial derivative, and one with a processing failure. Record expected capabilities and safe next actions before each fixture enters the workflow.

  2. Trace controls and transitions

    For each state, capture visible label, progress context, enabled controls, click result, document identity, and next status. Mark controls that do nothing, repeat work, or move to a state without explaining the capability change.

  3. Compare decisions

    Place the observed action paths beside the workflow contract and identify the first state where a reasonable reader could choose incorrectly. Separate missing copy from a control or processing transition that changes the document outcome.

What to carry forward

The investigation is sufficient when state fixtures show why a user cannot choose a safe next action and which transition creates ambiguity. If the intended action is disputed, deliver the evidence and request a decision rather than selecting a label by intuition.

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