Aglet

Investigate document processing transitions with status evidence

Investigation should follow one document through its processing lifecycle and compare backend or job evidence with every status the user sees. Use a document that exercises multiple stages and one with a deliberate failure, then identify whether the gap is in processing, persistence, or presentation.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Choose contrasting documents

    Use a document with a normal multi-stage path and one expected to fail at a later stage. Record source identity, expected derivatives, and allowed actions before processing starts, keeping the fixtures separate.

  2. Build the transition timeline

    Capture upload completion, stage starts and finishes, state writes, status reads, derivative availability, and visible controls in order. Mark absent or repeated transitions and distinguish a stage that never ran from one that ran without a label.

  3. Locate the first omission

    Compare the timeline with the documented lifecycle and identify the earliest missing or contradictory state. Explain the user-visible consequence, and leave queue timing or persistence as hypotheses when the evidence shows only a status gap.

What to carry forward

The investigation is sufficient when a document trace shows the first lifecycle transition that is absent or misleading and ties it to an action. If the processing stage cannot be observed, report the visible gap and keep the underlying work unknown.

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