Aglet

How to prioritize import workflow risks with evidence

Prioritize import confusion by what a person may unknowingly change or lose. A misleading confirmation after a partial save is higher risk than a label that needs explanation. A first-use dead end can be urgent even when the underlying import capability is intentionally limited, as long as the supported boundary is clear.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Classify the consequence

    Elevate wrong field mapping, silent partial persistence, and duplicate creation above a verbose label. Treat a clearly unsupported source with an honest explanation differently from a control that appears available but cannot finish. Keep validation defects separate from missing capability decisions.

  2. Bound the data scope

    Describe fixture size, source shape, mapping branch, user role, and saved-record evidence. Count only identified rows or test cases. If the workflow cannot expose a durable result, state the uncertainty and avoid claiming data loss or successful import.

  3. Choose safe containment

    Prefer preview before confirmation, explicit partial status, and a reversible retry where the existing workflow supports them. Do not recommend deleting records or disabling validation. Assign a product owner for contract clarity and a data owner for any observed persistence issue.

What to carry forward

Queue silent data changes and ambiguous partial saves first, then blocked but recoverable mapping, then copy polish. Include the supported boundary, exact fixture, safe action, owner, and evidence needed to confirm whether the problem is product behavior or expectation.

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