Build a useful investigation brief
Sample across the distribution
Choose reports across accounts, channels, roles, versions, and time rather than the most recent or most articulate entries. For each sample, record the blocked action, extra steps, time sensitivity, workaround, and whether the customer completed the workflow.
Test subgroup severity
Compare segments that may experience different consequences, such as first-time users, high-volume operators, or users without a workaround. Treat a severe subgroup as a separate investigation scope when aggregate averages conceal it. Compare completion and abandonment for the dominant workflow, not only report counts.
Validate the mechanism
Reproduce the friction under representative conditions and test whether the same interface choice, latency, policy, or missing affordance explains the reports. Record evidence that points to different causes and split the brief when needed. Keep a severe subgroup separate when its consequence differs from the common inconvenience.
What to carry forward
The investigation should state whether the cost is broadly small, concentrated in a severe subgroup, or fragmented across causes. Stop with a reproducible sample and known limits; split out a higher-severity branch rather than letting the aggregate label survive contradictory evidence.
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