Decide where the work belongs
Assess hidden consequence
For each gap, describe what a team might build or omit if the map is wrong. Give weight to waits, ownership changes, failed recovery, and groups that leave the journey. Keep cosmetic map detail below decision-critical uncertainty.
Compare evidence routes
Choose observation, interview, support review, task tracing, or a service walkthrough for each gap. Compare how directly each method can reveal the missing stage and what context it cannot capture. Record the least intrusive useful route.
Queue map work
Select gaps, owners, methods, and review dates. Defer low-consequence refinements with an explicit trigger. If the map contains incompatible journeys, split the research rather than forcing one priority over different outcomes.
What to carry forward
The priority output is a journey-map research queue with consequence, affected paths, evidence method, owner, and review trigger. Resolve the gap most likely to change scope or access first. Keep less critical map refinements visible without letting them obscure the main decision.
Technical background: GOV.UK user research guidance.
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