Decide where the work belongs
Observe the correction attempt
Use a controlled file and follow the reported row and column exactly. Record whether the location identifies the invalid value, a different record, or no usable source position. Distinguish a vague message from an incorrect coordinate that actively directs users to edit otherwise valid data in the wrong place.
Scope affected file structures
Compare ordinary files with headers, skipped introductory lines, multiline fields, and repeated column labels where supported. Identify which structures change the error location. Estimate reach from those import shapes and validation failures rather than assuming all rejected rows are equally difficult to correct under the current reporting behavior.
Assess alternative context and effort
Check whether an error report includes a stable record reference, source heading, or bounded value excerpt that still allows correction. Try the documented download or preview path. Include repeated-upload effort when users must fix one wrongly located error at a time without seeing the remaining rejected values in context.
What to carry forward
Record priority with the correction failure, affected structures, alternative context, and recovery effort. Escalate evidence that users are editing valid records because the report points to them. Keep the queue decision focused on usable source identification rather than making the error message longer without improving its coordinates.
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