Decide where the work belongs
Identify the actual assignment harm
Compare distinct source values with their intended and saved destinations. Record missing values, overwrites, or duplicate assignment separately. A clear rejection has a different consequence from a successful import that maps two repeated headings through one shared key and silently loses one column’s information.
Group by producer and header pattern
Find which relevant export tools produce repeated labels and whether the pattern is predictable. Compare exact duplicates with labels that differ only after normalization. Estimate reach from observed import layouts rather than assuming every mapping failure belongs to this issue or every duplicate heading is unsupported.
Evaluate mapping and correction effort
Try identifying each repeated column through sample values, position, and any disambiguating labels the preview provides. Check whether a documented source rename is practical. Include reconciliation effort for already accepted imports when users must revisit the original file to discover which repeated column supplied a destination value.
What to carry forward
Choose priority using confirmed value loss, affected producer reach, mapping clarity, and recovery cost. Assign a review trigger for silent acceptance or another duplicate-label pattern. Keep a narrow source-format limitation explicit if that is the current contract, rather than implying the importer supports every repeated heading layout.
Technical background: DuckDB documentation.
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