Aglet

Investigate a work item with missing decision rationale

Investigation should recover what the evidence can support and identify where a new decision is required. Reconstruct the timeline and alternatives, then test whether current behavior still depends on the missing rationale. Reconstruction should show what the record supports and where a new decision must replace missing history.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Build the decision timeline

    Order requirements, feedback, incidents, changes, reviews, tests, and status transitions. Identify the point where the decision was made and which artifacts existed then. Treat timestamps as sequence evidence, not intent by themselves.

  2. Compare alternatives and outcomes

    List plausible alternatives, their observed tradeoffs, and any evidence that one was rejected. Test current behavior against the assumptions that made the decision reasonable, noting changed constraints or unverified claims.

  3. Write a reconstruction or new brief

    State documented rationale, supported inference, unknowns, and whether the team should preserve, revise, or replace the decision. Assign the next decision owner and link evidence without inventing a missing quote.

What to carry forward

A useful brief either reconstructs the decision boundary with evidence and uncertainty or shows why a new decision is required. Stop when current work has a defensible path; keep historical unknowns labeled instead of converting inference into record. Keep reconstructed rationale attributable so later collaborators can challenge it without rewriting history.

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