Aglet

Triage a customer feedback priority disagreement

A disagreement is easier to resolve when the team knows what it actually disputes. Triage should align the request scope and evidence, then label disagreements about harm, reach, timing, confidence, or strategy rather than treating one opinion as the issue.

Establish what is happening

  1. Align the request boundary

    Read the same customer outcome, affected workflow, and evidence references. Confirm that participants are discussing one request rather than different segments or solutions. Split the record if the disagreement comes from mixed scope.

  2. Name the disputed dimensions

    List each disagreement as a testable claim: reach, severity, recurrence, workaround cost, urgency, confidence, or strategic relevance. Mark facts, assumptions, and preferences separately so debate does not blur them. Name the evidence source beside each claim so a reviewer can challenge the record without reopening the whole argument.

  3. Set a resolution path

    Choose evidence review, bounded investigation, decision-owner review, or explicit deferment. Assign the next step and state what observation could change each position. Preserve both reasoned views in the record until resolved.

What to carry forward

The output is a disagreement brief with a shared scope, disputed dimensions, evidence status, and a resolution owner. Stop triage when the team can debate the same claims; do not force consensus by collapsing differences into an average score. Keep the disputed priority dimension named so the next evidence review has a clear target.

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