Build a useful investigation brief
Create distinguishable source revisions
Prepare two small files with the same name but different recognizable values and column order. Define separate mappings for each. Record the expected outcome for the preview that is approved, then exercise file replacement or back navigation without relying on filenames as evidence of which source remained selected.
Trace persisted and recomputed inputs
Inspect what confirmation records and what execution subsequently loads. Compare file identity, mapping revision, parser options, and any defaults recomputed later. Distinguish a captured immutable input from a reference to current settings, especially when a queued job runs after another edit has already changed those settings.
Reproduce the smallest revision race
Use a controlled delayed execution or two editing sessions where supported. Change only the implicated input and observe the final assignment. Compare with an uninterrupted control. Preserve the exact sequence and timestamps so a proposed binding change can be checked against the same mismatch rather than a loosely similar import failure.
What to carry forward
Produce a revision timeline, smallest triggering sequence, and the input that changes after review. Propose a bounded correction that binds execution to approved inputs or clearly requires review again. Keep parser and destination defects separate when the execution revision itself matches what the user actually confirmed.
Technical background: Django import-export 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